ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Press Regulation

Natascha Engel: What steps she is taking to ensure that any future regulator of the press will be better equipped than the Press Complaints Commission to tackle allegations of discrimination during election campaigns.

Maria Miller: The royal charter, which sets out a framework for the press to establish a self-regulatory body, was granted by the Privy Council on 30 October. It protects freedom of the press while offering real redress if mistakes are made. The Government have no role to judge any proposed self-regulator.

Natascha Engel: During our inquiry into electoral conduct, we found that if people from a particular group, such as Christian, Muslim, Jewish or gay, felt that they had been discriminated against in print, they could argue it only under the heading of “inaccuracy” with the Press Complaints Commission. Will the Secretary of State use her influence, while the new code of conduct is being drafted, to ensure that those who feel discriminated against have proper redress in the future?

Maria Miller: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and commend her for that report. My officials are talking to the Equality and Human Rights Commission about the findings of the report, but I would say that the Government have no influence on the code. I am sure, however, that others who are listening will take note of her comments.

Rugby World Cup Tickets

Nick Smith: What steps she is taking to prevent the resale of 2015 rugby world cup tickets by touts.

Helen Grant: We are in regular contact with the England rugby 2015 organising committee. We have provided advice on a range of options to manage the risk of ticket touting.

Nick Smith: Will the Minister look again at making the rugby world cup an event of national significance like the Olympics, which would mean that fans would be able to buy tickets at face value? If the Minister reconsiders, Labour would help to deliver the necessary legislation in the new year so that real fans do not get ripped off by ticket touts.

Helen Grant: I believe the event will be of real national significance. It is a wonderful opportunity for people to take up rugby and to be inspired by sport. I have every confidence that tickets will be dealt with fairly and properly.

Philip Davies: If fans from New Zealand and Australia buy tickets for the world cup final in the expectation that their team will get there and one or both are knocked out in the semi-final, we will need a mechanism to allow supporters from those countries to sell them on to the supporters of the countries that are in the final. Does the Minister therefore not accept that the resale of tickets for the rugby world cup is not only inevitable, but desirable?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. At the end of the day, we want people to be able to watch a fantastic rugby tournament. The Government do not believe that legislation is necessary to control tickets; we believe that organisers, promoters and ticket agents should be looking at what they can do to protect customers and to make events accessible.

Sharon Hodgson: Tickets for the rugby world cup final are already on sale on viagogo for more than 10 times face value, and that is before tickets have even gone on sale to the general public. Is that not another example of why the Rugby Football Union is so keen for tickets to be protected so that ordinary fans can enjoy the sport? Why will the Government not take the action necessary to protect ordinary fans?

Helen Grant: Fans are going to enjoy the tournament and fans are going to enjoy this sport. As I have set out, we believe it is right for organisers, promoters and ticket agents to deal with access to events and tickets. Successive Governments have concluded that regulation should be the last resort.

David Davies: Does the Minister agree that the Government are absolutely right to be focusing on encouraging as many young people as possible to take up this wonderful sport, and that the best advice we could give to anyone who feels that they are about to be ripped off by ticket touts is to simply shun them?

Helen Grant: As always, my hon. Friend makes a good and important point. We must not spoil this opportunity. It will be a fantastic occasion and we want people to be inspired by sport, inspired by rugby and to have a wonderful time.

Harriet Harman: The House will have heard the powerful points put by my hon. Friends. Next year, 2.3 million tickets will go on sale for rugby union world cup matches in this
	country. It is the third-largest sporting tournament in the world. As the Minister knows, the organisers want to protect rugby fans from ticket touts and are asking for us to do the same as we did in the Olympics and ban the secondary ticketing market. So far, she is refusing to do this. We would help with the legislation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) rightly said. Will she think again so that the 2015 rugby union world cup can be enjoyed by rugby supporters, not exploited by ticket touts?

Helen Grant: The event will be enjoyed by rugby supporters and not exploited by ticket touts. I met England rugby 2015 recently and am aware of its concerns. I will always listen, but I am confident that mechanisms are in place to ensure that this event is enjoyed and not spoiled. There are many different mechanisms that can be put in place, including barcoding, named tickets and staggered releases, and I am delighted that 500,000 tickets will go on sale through the RFU’s members next May.

First World War Commemoration

Mike Freer: What plans her Department has to commemorate the beginning of the first world war.

Maria Miller: The Government will mark the centenary of the first world war with a programme of national events, cultural activities, educational initiatives and community projects from 4 August next year through to Armistice day in 2018. We will deliver a centenary that will mark, with the most profound respect, this seminal moment in our modern history for the benefit of all parts of the community.

Mike Freer: The first soldier to be killed on the western front in the first world war lived in Finchley and Golders Green. What plans are there for descendant families to be included in the commemorations?

Maria Miller: I recently took my family to St Symphorien and had the privilege of seeing John Parr’s grave—it was a moving moment for us all. We are working with the Commonwealth War Graves Commission to trace other families of men buried at St Symphorien, and we very much hope that a number of the families will be able to attend the event. We would welcome any help in tracing the families involved.

David Hanson: My grandfather Harry Hanson’s first taste of combat in the first world war was in March 1915 at Neuve Chapelle, where he fought alongside thousands of Indian troops who to this day remain buried in France. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that we will celebrate the role of Commonwealth troops, particularly Indian troops, during this first world war celebration?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the significant Commonwealth dimension to our commemoration of the first world war. It is most fitting that the first event, which will follow shortly after the Commonwealth games in Edinburgh next August, will involve Commonwealth leaders.

John Whittingdale: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the £1.5 million grant from the National Heritage Memorial Fund to save Stow Maries aerodrome in my constituency, which is the last remaining, intact first world war airfield? Does she agree that Stow Maries, from which pilots flew to defend us against zeppelin attacks, would be a fitting place to start the commemorations that her Department is planning?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to point out that there are not that many structures remaining for us to look at as part of our commemorations around the first world war centenary. I am sure that that airfield could play an important role in bringing this to life for new generations.

Bridget Phillipson: Springwell Dene school in my constituency already does excellent work in taking students to visit world war one battlefield sites, but it is concerned that because of its children’s special educational needs, it might not be able to take part in the Government’s scheme. Will a Minister from the Department meet me to discuss this matter and how we can ensure that all children in our communities can join in this commemoration and understand our history?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is right that the Government have invested considerably in ensuring that schoolchildren can visit battlefields, and of course that programme should be open to all children, although it is for schools to decide who exactly is involved. I am sure we would be interested to know more about the problems experienced and to try and resolve them, working with our colleagues in the Department for Education.

Matthew Offord: Would the Minister consider providing resources to expand or continue the sort of work that occurred at Pheasant Wood near Fromelles in France in order to locate and identify the war dead?

Maria Miller: I know that there is continuing work, particularly in the north of France, to identify individuals who might not even to date be buried in recognised graves. I am sure that that will continue until there is no longer a need for it.

Jim Shannon: On 1 July 1916 at the battle of the Somme, the 36th Ulster Division fought alongside the16th Irish Division, showing great courage and heroism in that much commemorated battle. Will the Secretary of State outline what discussions she has had with the Republic of Ireland Government to commemorate the battle of the Somme and other battles where the two nations fought together?

Maria Miller: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that considerable conversations are taking place between ourselves—and not just my Department, but others—and our colleagues in the Irish Republic. This is an important part of Irish history and it is important to recognise it in the work we are doing. If the hon. Gentleman had a look at the full list of events being undertaken, I think he would be pleasantly surprised and happy about what we have done.

Philip Hollobone: With the decision not to repatriate the fallen in the first world war, the legacy for our nation is that almost every village, town or city in the land has either a simple or a magnificent war memorial. What plans are in place to ensure that all of these are spick and span to commemorate the start of the first world war?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that there are very few communities in our country that do not possess a memorial to those who fell in the first world war, although there are, of course, a few thankful villages that had no need for one and might commemorate the event in different ways. We already have a good funding level for the restoration of memorials, but this is something that we continue to look at. If there is an indication that further support is needed, we would of course look at it further.

Sportivate Programme

Pat Glass: What assessment she has made of the potential effect of a greater focus on competitive sport on the number of women aged between 14 and 25 participating in the Sportivate programme.

Helen Grant: Sportivate is not a competitive sports programme. It offers young people the chance to try a new sport for the very first time. Nearly 300,000 14 to 25-year-olds have completed the Sportivate course in the last two years, including 4,250 young people from the hon. Lady’s constituency. Around half of the 300,000 participating are women, 80% of whom have gone on to play sport on a regular basis.

Pat Glass: The Minister will doubtless be aware that the Education Select Committee recently published a report looking at the legacy of the Olympics, which was somewhat disappointing. Has she had any discussions with the Department for Education about the restoration of school sport partnerships, the abolition of which has done so much harm to young people’s sporting activities and their long-term health?

Helen Grant: I disagree completely with the hon. Lady about that. Funding of some £1 billion is being put into youth and community sport by this Government. We have also committed £450 million over the next three years to primary school sport. We are running the school games in which 16,000 schools are participating, to encourage children to engage in competitive sport. More people are doing sport than ever before. The school sport partnerships were very expensive, very bureaucratic and, sadly, failed, with only two out of five pupils competing in sport on a regular basis.

Anne McIntosh: May I welcome my hon. Friend’s focus on participation in sport for women between those ages? I think too much focus on competitiveness can put them off from engaging. Will she confirm that all sports are involved, including swimming, which I learned at that age, and it is something that I continue to pursue in my advanced years?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am pleased that she still enjoys swimming—and may she continue to enjoy it for many years to come. She made an important point about competition. Competition can be great, but not everyone likes it. We want people to be active and to enjoy sport, which is why changes have been made to the national curriculum to provide a broad range of team and individual activities such as dance that will appeal to those who may be a little less competitive.

Tourism

Pauline Latham: What recent assessment she has made of the value of tourism to the British economy.

Chris White: What recent assessment she has made of the value of tourism to the British economy.

Maria Miller: Tourism is at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda. It is one of the largest export industries in the UK. It helps to rebalance our economy, generates investment and creates jobs, and it is at the centre of the country’s economic recovery.

Pauline Latham: Derwent Valley Mills is a world heritage site that extends throughout my constituency and beyond, but families currently have nowhere to take their children so that they can cycle safely between the mills. I have set up a cycling group, which is considering the possibility of putting a cycling track well away from the traffic to make it safe. How can the Secretary of State help me to ensure—in conjunction with the Olympic legacy—that children are encouraged to keep active, while also being able to enjoy a piece of history?

Maria Miller: Through that excellent local initiative, my hon. Friend has demonstrated that culture and sport are never too far apart, and I commend her for the work she has done. The integrated transport block grant that local authorities receive for small transport improvement schemes, including cycling schemes, is potentially an important source of funding for the project in her constituency, as it enables local authorities to come up with the solutions that are most suitable for their areas and for projects of that kind.

Chris White: Next year, 2014, will mark the 1,100th anniversary of the great town of Warwick. It will be a year of celebrations. You will, of course, be very welcome to attend those celebrations, Mr Speaker, and I am sure that many other people will want to visit the town. Will the Secretary of State—who will also be very welcome—tell us what policies are being drawn up to support towns such as Warwick, where tourism plays such an important part in our local economy?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right. Warwick castle is a great attraction in the area, and, having visited the town as a child and, more recently, with my own children, I know that it is a great place to visit.
	Our tourism figures are strong at the moment, and the Government are continuing to invest in both VisitBritain and VisitEngland. We want to ensure that people from
	outside the country not only come to London, but travel beyond the capital to places such as Warwick. We are also encouraging more people in this country to spend holidays at home, and VisitEngland is doing well in that respect too.

Barry Sheerman: As a woman of taste and refinement, does the Secretary of State agree that Huddersfield is the jewel in the crown of God’s own county of Yorkshire, not least because its university has been named university of the year? Does she agree that it is about time Huddersfield, Yorkshire and the north of England in general benefited from a fair share of tourism activity, especially as we shall be on the Tour de France route?

Maria Miller: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are linking the various parts of our departmental brief, because sport can be a great way of increasing tourism. The Tour de France, and the Government’s investment in it, will ensure that more people are able to experience the joys of Yorkshire, and can visit places such as the Yorkshire sculpture park while they are there.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the major tourist attractions next year in the United Kingdom will be the Commonwealth games. The games will take place in Glasgow, but there will be further events in Edinburgh and other parts of Scotland. Although nearly all the tickets have been sold, I am sure that the atmosphere in Glasgow, Edinburgh and elsewhere will be as exciting as the atmosphere in London during the 2012 Olympics. What are the Government doing to encourage people in the rest of the United Kingdom to visit Scotland during the games, so that everyone can benefit from that wonderful experience?

Maria Miller: As the hon. Gentleman says, the Commonwealth games will serve as a great hook to encourage more people to visit Scotland. However, there will also be the golf and festivals to encourage people to get additional value out of their visits. During November alone there were nearly 3 million visits to the UK, 10% more than in the same month last year. We are doing important work through VisitBritain, the Scottish Government and VisitScotland to encourage more people to visit not just London but the United Kingdom as a whole, and I think we shall see great success in the months and years to come.

Mr Speaker: I call Bob Blackman. He is not here, so I call Ian Mearns.

Children’s Participation in the Arts

Ian Mearns: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on children’s participation in the arts.

Edward Vaizey: I frequently meet the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), because the DCMS and the Department for Education now have a joint music and cultural education
	board. We now have a national music plan and a national cultural education plan, and we work very closely together on this.

Ian Mearns: In 2011 the Secretary of State for Education abandoned the creative partnerships programme for schools. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimated that that programme generated £15.30 in economic and social benefits for every £1 of investment. Since then nearly a third of museums have seen a decrease in visits by schools and over 2,000 schools and hundreds of thousands of pupils no longer benefit from this culturally enriching programme. Does the Minister think his colleague at the DFE got that decision right?

Edward Vaizey: The latest figures show that 99% of 11 to 15-year-olds visited and experienced culture in the last year, and I am delighted that the Secretary of State for Education extended the In Harmony programme; ring-fenced money for music; helped us to create heritage schools; set up the first ever national youth dance company; and put in place the first ever national music and cultural education plans.

Stephen Mosley: I recently had the fantastic opportunity to go to see a mini-opera at Chester cathedral put on by Cheshire fire and rescue service, Manchester Camerata and three local primary schools. The idea of the opera was to teach children about fire safety. Does my hon. Friend agree that the arts and culture have got a huge role to play in encouraging young people to get involved in education?

Edward Vaizey: I have frequent engagement with Manchester Camerata and I commend its imaginative approach in engaging other parts of local services, particularly the fire and rescue service and the health service. The arts can not only engage young people and children in education, they can also help to engage adults in a whole range of other local services.

Chris Bryant: This is a very convoluted question, so I hope the Minister will bear with me. I just wonder whether he has had an opportunity to see the National Youth Theatre production of “Tory Boyz”, which I am told is about a lot of homosexual Conservatives. They, among many others, might want to ask the Government why they are taking such a long time to allow the upgrade of civil partnerships to full same-sex marriages. He is having plenty of time to ask the Secretary of State now. Will he bring it forward a bit faster?

Mr Speaker: That question suffers from the disadvantage of having nothing to do with children’s participation in the arts.

Chris Bryant: I got it in.

Mr Speaker: Well, I thought it was not orderly, but the Minister can offer a very brief reply, which I feel sure he will do with skill and alacrity.

Edward Vaizey: I, for one, have stood by in complete admiration of the Secretary of State’s magnificent work in bringing forward same-sex marriage, and I think she stands to be commended and not criticised for her brilliant work on this issue.

Mr Speaker: I am sure the Minister couples that with admiration for the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).

Helen Goodman: In fact, the creative industries is one of the few areas of the British economy that is currently growing, but despite what the Minister said, Ofsted has criticised the effectiveness of music hubs and one school in six is cutting arts subjects. If DCMS Ministers cannot persuade their colleagues at the Department for Education to take a broader view, our young people will be permanently disadvantaged. Is the problem that the Minister is not sufficiently persuasive or that the Secretary of State for Education is too narrow-minded?

Edward Vaizey: I would never accuse the Secretary of State for Education of being narrow-minded. I take on board the hon. Lady’s praise for my Secretary of State who is leading the growth in the creative industries. We in DCMS are led by a Secretary of State who is leading a Department for growth. That is very good news indeed, and I repeat what I said: there is a huge input from the Secretary of State for Education.
	I really would not take too much from an Ofsted report that looks at music hubs four months after they have been created and condemns them. The hon. Lady should speak to her friends in the Musicians Union, who are furious about that report.

Arts Council Funding

David Mowat: What steps she is taking to reduce differences in Arts Council funding spent in London and the regions.

Edward Vaizey: Arts Council England makes its funding decisions independently of Government, but it must take care to ensure all areas of the country have access to its funding. We have discussed this with the Arts Council and continue to do so, and the Arts Council has indicated that a priority in its forthcoming investment round will be to achieve a better balance from public funding and lottery investment across the country.

David Mowat: The Minister might be aware of the recent report, “Rebalancing Our Cultural Capital”, which stated that in 2012-13, £69 per head was spent in London while £4.60 per head was spent in the English regions. That represents a ratio of 15:1, which does not exist anywhere else in the world. How long will it take to get this fixed?

Edward Vaizey: I think we are making very good progress—

Helen Goodman: You’re not.

Edward Vaizey: Well, the balance in lottery funding between the regions and London was 60:40 under the previous Government, and it has now gone up to 70:30. The Arts Council chairman is well aware of the issue and wants to go further. The Arts Council has set up the strategic touring programme and the creative people and places fund to help to rebalance arts funding in the regions,
	and our brilliant Chancellor of the Exchequer has introduced proposals to support touring theatre with tax relief.

Chi Onwurah: When this matter was last raised here, the Secretary of State seemed to imply that the answer was for London-based companies to do more touring, and the Minister has said that again. Do they not recognise that Londoners deserve to have the benefit of our great arts companies, such as Northern Stage, the Live Theatre and the Northern Sinfonia? If more touring by London companies is not the answer, what is?

Edward Vaizey: As always, the hon. Lady makes a fantastically brilliant point. It is important to strike a balance. This is not just a matter of London organisations going out to “the regions”. I am very excited about more co-productions between, for example, the National Theatre and the regional theatres, to enable productions created in regional theatres to come to London so that we can get some of the fantastic benefits of the brilliant arts going on outside London.

Professional Football (Stewardship)

Bob Russell: When she last met representatives of the Football Association and the Football League to discuss their stewardship of professional football.

Helen Grant: I have regular meetings with the English football authorities to discuss a range of issues, including the stewardship of professional football.

Bob Russell: I think there is general agreement that professional football in this country is rotten to the core, not least as a result of parasitic agents taking millions of pounds a year out of the game and of football wasting its riches in the same way as successive Governments wasted the North sea oil revenues. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport has done a good job with its report and recommendations, but does the Minister agree that what we need now is a royal commission on professional football in order to clean up the game?

Helen Grant: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The football authorities introduced reforms in August, including smaller boards and a new licensing system, to deal with ownership and financial matters and to improve relations with supporters. That is certainly a start, but more definitely needs to be done. If it is not done, there is always the option of legislation.

Gerry Sutcliffe: Will the sports Minister convene a meeting between the football authorities and the betting industry? We are seeing an increase in cheating, in the form of match-fixing and spot-betting, and we need to start a discussion on what constitutes an appropriate bet. Betting on the number of corners or of red and yellow cards, for example, is inappropriate. Does she agree that there should be a discussion about that?

Helen Grant: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know that he has considerable knowledge of these issues. We had a meeting a couple of days ago—it was reported in the papers—with the main governing bodies and the Gambling Commission to discuss the very issues that he raises: match-fixing and spot-fixing. The integrity of the sport is absolutely paramount, and we must keep sport clean. It is obvious that a multi-agency approach is needed to deal with these issues, and we also need to continue to ensure that player education is developed and that information sharing happens. We also need to share best practice.

Kate Green: Will the Minister tell us what the Government have been doing to encourage the development of co-operative ownership models for football clubs, including with the supporters of Manchester United?

Helen Grant: We have regular meetings with various organisations. The ownership of clubs is obviously an interesting matter, and there is a place for all different types of ownership. I am going to meet some of the supporters groups in the new year, and I am sure that they will raise the issue of ownership with me. I remain open-minded about this. I know that clubs that are owned by supporters work very well indeed, and that the supporters have the best interests of the game at heart.

Clive Efford: The 2009 Parry report on sports betting recommended strengthening the law on cheating, as defined in the Gambling Act 2005. Jacques Rogge has described cheating in gambling as being
	“as dangerous as doping for the credibility of sport.”
	The Secretary of State called a summit this week, presumably to explain to sports governing bodies why the Government alone have failed to meet the recommendations of the Parry report. She rejected all our amendments to the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill on match-fixing. Following the recent allegations in football, will she now reconsider her position?

Helen Grant: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the law is working. It is in place, and we have seen recent arrests and the good work of the National Crime Agency. We have criminal offences of bribery, corruption and fraud, and there is an offence under section 42 of the 2005 Act. The law is in place and it is being used. Of course, we must keep it under review, and I will do that.

Mr Speaker: I call Mark Menzies. Not here.

Nuisance Telephone Calls

Nicholas Dakin: How her Department measures the success of steps taken to reduce the number of nuisance telephone calls.

Edward Vaizey: The issue of nuisance telephone calls is a priority for the Department, and we will be publishing our action plan shortly. We would like to see more effective enforcement by the Information Commissioner’s Office and Ofcom, through
	use of their substantial fining powers. Also, we are keen for them to more easily share information with each other.

Nicholas Dakin: A 90-year-old constituent of mine who has signed up for the telephone preference service continues to be plagued by nuisance calls. There is not enough urgency from the Government on this matter. Will the Minister commit, as a starting point, at least to implement all the recommendations made by the all-party group on nuisance calls? That would be a start.

Edward Vaizey: I reject the accusation of a lack of urgency. I have worked closely with a number of stakeholders over many months. We are publishing our action plan in the new year because we want to take account of the excellent reports by the all-party group and the Select Committee.

Duncan Hames: I am glad that the Minister wants the Information Commissioner’s Office to be able to take more enforcement action to tackle this menace. Will he therefore lower the legal threshold above which the Information Commissioner is able to take enforcement action?

Edward Vaizey: We would like to do that and we will consult on it.

Topical Questions

Diana Johnson: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Maria Miller: We recently launched our £100 million super-connected cities broadband voucher scheme, providing qualifying small and medium-sized enterprises with up to £3,000 of funding to access superfast broadband. As part of the autumn statement, further support measures were announced for the film industry, sport, and regional arts and culture, and there was an announcement of a new £10 million competitive fund to market test innovative solutions to deliver superfast broadband to reach some of the UK’s most remote communities.

Diana Johnson: I thank the Secretary of State for announcing Hull as the city of culture for 2017 on 20 November, and for immediately getting on a train to visit the city—we very much appreciated that. In line with the original thinking on the city of culture status, will she help the city by making sure that some of our great cultural prizes, such as the Turner prize, the Booker prize and the Brit awards, come to Hull in 2017?

Maria Miller: The city of culture programme is a great way to showcase our great cultural assets outside London and around the country. I was delighted to meet so many of the people who were crucial in putting Hull’s bid together. I would also like to commiserate with those that did not make it to that final accolade, as the semi-finalists were also extremely strong. I will do all I can to make sure that being city of culture in 2017 is as successful for Hull as being city of culture has been for Derry/Londonderry.

Richard Graham: I recently raised with the Minister the case of a constituent in Gloucester who has been plagued by nuisance calls even after she had changed her telephone number and registered with the telephone preference service. Sadly, as all hon. Members will know, that is not an isolated case. I was grateful for his reply, in which he said that what we need is more enforcement, not more law. Will he outline what specific action he intends to take to make that happen?

Edward Vaizey: We intend to publish our action plan early in the new year. As well as looking at the issue of the threshold, it is important that we bring the two regulators closer together. It is also important to note that Ofcom is undertaking a review of the telephone preference service to check what changes can be made to make it more effective.

Clive Efford: The Active People survey figures that were published as we walked into the Chamber this morning show that they were down on last year. When the last set of figures was published, the Government blamed the weather. Will they do so again today? The time for excuses has passed. Even more damning, the figures for 16 to 25-year-olds are down by 51,000. There was no better golden legacy left to this Government than the one in sport. Just what will the Government do about this terrible situation?

Helen Grant: I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman is being so negative. I have seen that report. More people, including women and people with disabilities, are participating in sport in this country than ever before, which should be celebrated. Of course there is more to do, and we will do it. We are focusing action on 14 to 25-year-olds, who have competing demands on their time. We expect the sports bodies to focus on this. If they do not, there will be consequences. They receive a large amount of public money, and if they cannot produce the goods, we will get other people involved.

Nigel Evans: If the Secretary of State came to Lancashire and had a selfie done with me and was enthusiastic to show it to the wider public, she would find that uploading it would be a bit hit and miss, because in Lancashire only 55% have access to superfast broadband, compared with 65% nationally. Will she ensure that, rather than being left in the digital dinosaur age, Lancashire will have superfast broadband rolled out as quickly as possible, and that 100% will get access to it?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to say that every corner of the country needs to be in our targets when it comes to rolling out superfast broadband. I am delighted to tell him that that is exactly why the Government are investing more than £1 billion of public money in rolling out rural superfast broadband. We are making rapid progress in his area. As of the end of last month, more than 11,000 premises had been passed, and Ofcom data now show that Lancashire county council has
	more than 67% availability of superfast broadband. We are making progress, but we need to ensure that that continues.

Pat Glass: I listened carefully to the Minister’s earlier response on ticket touting. I remind her that it is some years since the Government and the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport looked at the issue. Operation Podium, which policed the Olympics, reported earlier this year that ticket touting is rife with criminality and money laundering and said that now was the time for regulation. Why will the Minister not act now to protect rugby fans from that criminality?

Helen Grant: We do not need legislation. I have made it clear that it is a matter for the operators, promoters and agents. They are able to apply many mechanisms, which I set out earlier. However, we will keep legislation under review.

Matthew Offord: As part of the Government’s commitment to preserving our heritage for current and future generations, will Ministers support Bury farm, a unique medieval farm in my constituency, and give it protection from development?

Edward Vaizey: It is very important that this wonderful grade 2 listed farm is protected from development as far as possible, and any development around it should be as sympathetic as possible. English Heritage runs a fantastic heritage protection service in this country, which will only be enhanced by the new model that we have just announced.

Emma Lewell-Buck: In South Shields, more than £2.8 million has been lost on high stakes, fixed odds betting terminals. Those machines allow players to gamble as much as £100 every 20 seconds and have already been banned by a number of countries. Will the Minister take action to tackle the damage that the machines do and back Labour’s call to limit the maximum stake on these machines to £2?

Helen Grant: There is absolutely no green light for fixed-odds betting terminals. Their future will be kept under review pending further work, which has already started.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on arts disparities, may I raise a further complication? When the Arts Council for London, or the English Arts Council—London based—finds itself in the north-west it never usually goes much further than Manchester and Liverpool.

Edward Vaizey: I know that the Arts Council has a forward operating base in Manchester. I shall encourage it to go further from that base and to take account of the superb culture in my hon. Friend’s constituency and in those of other hon. Friends in Lancashire.

Karl Turner: Given that Hull has won the prestigious title of city of culture for 2017, will the Secretary of State join me in pressing colleagues in the Treasury and Department for Transport to ensure that we have proper, good-quality transport links, including electrification of the railway line to Hull and improvements and upgrades to the A63?

Maria Miller: I know that my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport already have a significant plan for Hull. I am sure that the fact that it will be 2017 city of culture will only add focus to their work.

Nick Harvey: The Secretary of State referred to the 10% who are most difficult to reach with superfast broadband. Does she recognise that in areas such as mine that number is far bigger than 10%, and that the rural economy is dependent on small micro-businesses and on much-higher-than- average levels of home working? Will she get on with allocating the £250 million that has been set aside for that 10%, and will she not make it match funded by already broke rural authorities?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that making superfast broadband a priority infrastructure project for this country was the right decision for the Government. The plans we inherited from Labour were lamentable. He will know that we have already allocated £250 million and will be announcing shortly how that will be used. He will also have noted in the autumn statement an additional £10 million for the hardest-to-reach areas where we need innovative solutions.

Kate Green: According to the charity Scope, disabled people are warning that the positive effect of the Paralympics on public attitudes is being undermined by widespread “scrounger” rhetoric. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with media organisations to challenge that pervasive and unpleasant narrative?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady will know that we are working hard on the legacy for disabled people of London 2012. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), who is the Minister for disabled people, is at the heart of our legacy programme. We are ensuring that the media have the opportunity to showcase, particularly through sports, the incredible contribution of disabled people to our society. Through that positive imagery, we can challenge the rhetoric that the hon. Lady is talking about.

Mark Pawsey: The Minister has already spoken of the benefits to tourism of major sporting events, particularly the rugby world cup 2015. Now that the locations have been set, does she agree that there is a big opportunity for places such as Brighton, Exeter, Milton Keynes, Leeds and Newcastle to attract new visitors, and that my constituency, as the birthplace of the game, will get a particular economic benefit?

Mr Speaker: Topical questions, and the answers, are supposed to be brief and they just continue as though they are an extension of the main session. After a number of years in the House, people really ought to know that by now.

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Major sporting events bring huge benefits economically, in tourism, and most of all in inspiring people to get involved in sport. As the birthplace of rugby, my hon. Friend’s wonderful constituency has an opportunity to increase its profile both nationally and internationally.

Chi Onwurah: Under Labour’s universal broadband pledge, everyone would now have enjoyed a year of full access to decent broadband instead of the ongoing delay and controversy. Will the Minister be sending out e-Christmas cards this year and, if so, does he take responsibility for all the problems that so many people will still have receiving them?

Edward Vaizey: Call me old-fashioned, Mr Speaker, but I send out physical Christmas cards. You will receive one and so will the hon. Lady.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but I am afraid they will have to blame those who took too long to ask their questions or to give the answers.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Gender Pay Gap

Diana Johnson: What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.

Ann McKechin: What steps she is taking to reduce the gender pay gap.

Maria Miller: This Government are committed to reducing the gender pay gap. Women have had the legal right to equal pay for nearly 40 years, but there is still a long way to go before we achieve equality in the workplace. The Government’s focus is on driving the necessary culture change in business, in particular through improving transparency.

Diana Johnson: Forty-three years on from Barbara Castle’s landmark Equal Pay Act 1970, will the right hon. Lady be pleased to be remembered as the Minister who brought in a fee of £1,200 for a pregnant sacked woman to take a case to an employment tribunal on grounds of discrimination and her right to equal pay?

Maria Miller: I am disappointed that the hon. Lady continues to follow this line of questioning, as she is at risk of scaremongering with her reference to the £1,200. She will know that the vast majority of individuals who want to bring a tribunal claim will pay a far lower fee and that our remissions scheme will protect those who cannot pay. I hope she will ensure that she is not
	scaremongering in this regard because pregnant women will want to know the facts about the support available to them.

Ann McKechin: We will not tackle the gender pay gap until we tackle gender segregation in apprenticeships. May I suggest that the Minister re-examine the conclusions of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee in its “Women in the Workplace” report, and introduce a clear target and reporting strategy so that we can tackle that gender gap?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady is right that we want to ensure that more women see apprenticeships as an opportunity to get into different fields, particularly STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—related occupations. We know that the gender pay gap has a significant link to the career choices that women make, and apprenticeships have a good role to play.

Philip Davies: Is it not slightly embarrassing for this Government and Labour to be lecturing about equal pay when the Equality and Human Rights Commission, under the previous Government and still today, pays white people more than it pays ethnic minority staff, pays disabled staff less than its non-disabled staff, and pays women less than it pays its male staff?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right to ensure that we are transparent about the reality within public organisations, such as that to which he refers. My Department publishes its pay so that everybody can see how it treats individuals, and I am pleased to say that the gender pay gap in my Department has disappeared. I hope that by ensuring that transparency of salary information we will continue to see more Departments in the same position.

Philip Hollobone: The biggest source of the gender pay gap is the difficulty that working women have in finding well paid employment that is flexible enough to cope with their child care requirements. What more can the Government do to increase flexibility in the workplace?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is right that, rather than introducing yet more legislation, the Government have been ensuring that we modernise the workplace and that in doing so we modernise the culture around flexible working in particular. It is a shame that the Labour party in government was unable to put in place flexible working. We have set great store by flexible working for all, and ensuring that everybody, regardless of their care responsibilities, has that option available to them.

Gloria De Piero: Under Labour the gender pay gap fell. This morning’s official figures show that it is now on the increase. What are the Government going to do about it?

Maria Miller: The hon. Lady will know that under this Government more women are in work than ever before, that the figures show that salaries are rising, and that we are tackling the long-term issue of the gender pay gap by changing the culture in business. Her party
	failed to do that by not ensuring that flexible working was available for all. We are making sure that a workplace that was designed by men for men is now designed to accommodate women too.

Cost of Living

Karl Turner: What assessment she has made of the effect on women of changes in the cost of living.

Yvonne Fovargue: What assessment she has made of the effect on women of changes in the cost of living.

Jo Swinson: We recognise that these are tough times when both women and men need help with the cost of living. As last week’s autumn statement shows, the Government are providing that help—on income tax, fuel bills and council tax bills—to ensure that hard-working people can make ends meet. Critically, we are also taking the necessary steps to rebuild our economy following the financial crisis.

Karl Turner: I have conducted research in my constituency, where 83% of women told me that they are much worse off now than they were in 2010. They said that was down to increasing energy bills and the cost of food. Does the Minister accept that there is a cost of living crisis now and that women are bearing the brunt?

Jo Swinson: I absolutely accept that people up and down the country are facing significant challenges with the cost of living, which is why the Government are taking action to help them. While we are talking about accepting things, I think that the hon. Gentleman needs to start to accept that one reason why families up and down the country are facing such challenges is the financial mess that his party got our country into.

Yvonne Fovargue: According to analysis from the House of Commons Library and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the married couples tax break of less than £4 a week announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement will be paid to men in five out of six cases. Does the Minister believe that is the best way to support women facing a cost of living crisis?

Jo Swinson: The hon. Lady and others will be well aware of the differences within the coalition over that policy, as set out in the coalition agreement in 2010. What the Government are doing that will help women hugely is cutting income tax bills for 25 million people—six out of 10 of whom will be women—up and down the country, putting £700 back in their pockets.

Harriett Baldwin: Does the Minister agree that one of the costs faced by the record number of women now in work is the cost of government, which they pay for through their taxes? Will she therefore welcome the fact that 1 million women have seen a 100% reduction in the cost of their income tax?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that taking women out of income tax will help significantly. It is important that we cut people’s tax bills and ensure that the Government deliver value for money. That is what this Government are doing, because the last thing that will help women, or indeed men, is to leave this mess for the next generation to clear up.

David Heath: Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, a time when women cleaners in the City paid tax at a higher rate than their millionaire bosses and when women pensioners were offered a derisory increase of 75p in their pensions? She has already mentioned the tax thresholds, and we now have the triple lock on pensions. Is that not really good news for many women across the country?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the £650 a year increase in the state pension resulting from the triple lock will hugely help women and men up and down the country with the cost of living—that is a wide range of people, from newly retired pensioners to those like my wonderful grandmother, who celebrates her 100th birthday today.

Fiona Mactaggart: When it comes to the pay gap and the cost of living, the people who are often under the most pressure are women between the age of 30 and retirement age, where the pay gap is biggest. What is the Minister doing to help older middle-aged women to carry those burdens?

Jo Swinson: I will not be drawn into giving exact descriptions of women at different stages of life, but I think that the hon. Lady is right to highlight the fact that there is a particular issue for women in that age group. Opportunity Now has recently been undertaking Project 28-40 to research the barriers that those women, in particular, face in the workplace—if Members want to contribute to the survey, I understand that it is open until Sunday. Obviously, the changes we are making for shared parental leave and flexible working will be particularly helpful for those women.

Simon Hughes: We all send our love and congratulations to the Minister’s grandma today. Can she assure us that there are rigorous equality impact assessments of all Government policies for women in general, and for black and minority ethnic women and women with disabilities in particular?

Jo Swinson: My right hon. Friend makes the important point that all policies need to take into account the impact they will have on equality. Every Department has a responsibility to ensure that is taken into account when it brings forward a policy, and not just as some kind of afterthought when it is going through a checklist at the end, but to embed that right through the policy-making process so that those things are considered at the beginning.

Sharon Hodgson: Office for National Statistics figures show that women working full-time have seen almost £2,500 wiped off their real earnings since the election. Does the Minister accept that this shows that her Government’s cost of living crisis is hitting women particularly hard; and why, then, are Ministers continuing with economic policies that hit women three times harder than men?

Jo Swinson: The statistics that the hon. Lady uses are entirely partial. They do not take into account, for example, the changes to the taxation system that disproportionately help women through the income tax cut that we have made. The point that she really needs to understand is that the best way to tackle the cost of living crisis is to ensure that we get on with building a stronger economy that will support jobs and growth. That is what this Government are doing, whereas Labour’s plans just rely on ever more debt that the next generation will have to clear up and pay back.

Violence Against Women

Gavin Shuker: What progress the Government have made in reducing violence against women since May 2010.

Norman Baker: The coalition Government is strongly committed to tackling violence against women and girls. Some £40 million of funding has been ring-fenced between 2011 and 2015 for specialist domestic and sexual violence services. We have created two new offences of stalking, introduced legislation to criminalise forced marriage, and re-launched our successful national “This is Abuse” campaign. On 25 November, we also announced the roll-out of domestic violence protection orders and Clare’s law to provide greater protection for victims.

Gavin Shuker: A clear majority of women in prostitution experience serious violence in an exploitative trade that promotes wider gender inequality. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the European Union’s draft report on sexual exploitation, which makes it clear that the burden of criminality should shift from seller to buyer, and write to me with his reflections?

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of vulnerable women involved in prostitution. The Government is particularly concerned about women who have been trafficked who end up in that situation, and that is the primary concern that we are taking forward.

Bob Blackman: Last year 1.2 million women were victims of domestic violence. It is well known that the police do not prioritise dealing with these crimes, so what more can be done to encourage them to take them seriously and deal with them properly?

Norman Baker: I assure my hon. Friend that we have made our concerns known to the police and to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and we are taking matters forward with them. Yesterday the Home Secretary and I met the DPP and the national policing lead to try to make sure that we understand why there has been a drop in referrals. However, it is also worth pointing out that the number of successful prosecutions for domestic violence has risen to 73%—the highest ever.

Luciana Berger: The recent report by the Children’s Commissioner into child sexual exploitation found really shocking levels of sexual assault and rape among children, and that young people had a very limited understanding of consent. I listened to the Minister’s response, but he
	said nothing about how we inform the next generation. Why are the Government refusing to implement the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation and make sex and relationship education compulsory in all our schools?

Norman Baker: It is a bit unfair to say that I did not mention such matters, because I referred to the re-launch of the “This is Abuse” campaign, which has already been very successful, with 85,000 visits to the website since it was launched last week and 19,000 plays of the “Hollyoaks” TV advert. We are getting through to young people through that campaign. I agree with the hon. Lady that child sexual exploitation is a very serious issue indeed, and I congratulate the deputy Children’s Commissioner on the work she has undertaken, which we are taking forward in conjunction with her.

David Davies: Female genital mutilation is a particularly pernicious form of violence against women. Why has nobody in this country yet been convicted of being a party to this appalling practice?

Norman Baker: That is a question I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions, because the legislation has been on the statute book for 28 years and throughout that time there has been no successful prosecution. I think that that partly relates to the reluctance of children to give evidence against parents. I assure my hon. Friend that we are considering the matter. The DPP is looking at existing cases and reviewing whether we can reopen some of them, and I am hopeful that there will be prosecutions in the near future.

Economic Climate

Debbie Abrahams: What assessment she has made of the effect of the economic climate on people in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

Helen Grant: The Government’s policy is to help disadvantaged communities and disadvantaged areas. It does not prioritise any particular race or ethnic background.

Debbie Abrahams: On Monday, Members from across the House spoke passionately about what Nelson Mandela had done to make the world a fairer place, but those words are meaningless if they are not followed up by deeds. It is unacceptable in 21st-century Britain that black men are more likely to be unemployed than white men, and that women from black, Asian and minority ethnic groups are twice as likely to be unemployed as the national average. Why is there not a comprehensive racial equality strategy to address these issues?

Helen Grant: The hon. Lady makes important points, but I must tell her that there are more ethnic minority people in work in the UK—3.1 million—than ever before. More, of course, needs to be done, which is why the Government have in place a range of tailored support through Jobcentre Plus, the Work programme, the youth contract and our Get Britain Working measures.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Care Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords] followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords Amendments.
	Wednesday 18 December—Opposition Day [15th allotted day]. There will be a debate on accident and emergency services, followed by a debate on food banks.
	Both debates will arise on an official Opposition motion.
	Thursday 19 December—Select Committee statement on the publication of the Ninth Report from the Transport Committee entitled “High Speed Rail: On Track?” followed by matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment as selected by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 20 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 6 January 2014 will include:
	Monday 6 January—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 19 December and 9 January 2014 will be:
	Thursday 19 December—A debate on immigration from Bulgaria and Romania.
	Thursday 9 January—A debate on the Fifth Report of the Transport Select Committee on access to transport for disabled people, followed by a debate on the First Report of the International Development Select Committee on global food security.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I take this opportunity to wish him a happy birthday for yesterday?
	I also thank the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for the chance the House had on Monday to pay tribute to Nelson Mandela. Will the Leader of the House confirm when he plans to reschedule the business that we had to move to accommodate what was an entirely appropriate and solemn occasion?
	Today the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority released its recommendations on MPs’ pay and pensions. Does the Leader of the House agree with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that those suffering a cost of living crisis will not understand a pay rise many times the rate of inflation? Does he agree that, notwithstanding IPSA’s independence, a joint meeting should take place today to ask it to reconsider the package?
	Given that the autumn statement has, in effect, turned into the winter statement, does the Leader of the House agree that it is crucial for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make a statement on the provisional local government finance settlement
	for England before the House rises next week? Local authorities are already struggling with huge cuts and they need as much time as possible to deal with the unpalatable decisions this Government have left them with.
	More than 50 hon. and right hon. Members attended yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), on the future of the badger cull. It is becoming increasingly clear that the cull is an expensive disaster for farmers, wildlife and all taxpayers. Sine the extensions to the cull were announced, hundreds of thousands of people have signed petitions and many experts have demanded that the Government rethink their approach. Some hon. Members who were in favour of the cull are changing their minds, but all the Environment Secretary does is ignore the facts, hide behind written ministerial statements and assert his personal belief that it is working. Does the Leader of the House agree with the swelling numbers on his own Back Benches who recognise that this cull is a travesty? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State to emerge from his sett and come to the House for an urgent debate in Government time on the future of the 40 further culls that are currently scheduled to take place?
	Last week’s autumn statement confirmed one central fact: working people are worse off under this Government. The Chancellor made the desperate claim that
	“real household disposable income is rising”.—[Official Report, 5 December 2013; Vol. 571, c. 1101.]
	We know, however, that the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies was right when he said that household income is
	“almost certainly significantly lower now than it was in 2010.”
	Does the Leader of the House think that the Chancellor was right to include the incomes of charities, universities and pension contributions in his calculations as if they were household income? Does he agree with the Office for Budget Responsibility that it is “inconceivable” that household incomes are rising?
	The Government began by insisting that they did not enjoy making spending cuts, but the mask slipped a few weeks ago when the Prime Minister donned his white tie and tails and told an audience in the City that public spending cuts are not just for now but for ever. As the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, by 2017-18 Government spending on public services and administration
	“will shrink to its smallest share of national income at least since 1948, when comparable National Accounts data are first available”.
	This Government’s stated aim is pre-1948 levels of spending, but with double the number of retired people to care for and far more expensive health needs. Despite the hollow protestations of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury today, the fact is that the Liberal Democrats signed up only last week to creating this pre-war vision of an unnaturally shrunken and feeble state.
	The Chancellor can throw as much mud as he likes at the previous Labour Government, but the British people will see straight through him to the cold, stark reality of this baleful vision of a country with no social justice and no safety net—a country in which people sink or swim. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on this Government’s Hobbesian vision of the future?
	The fiasco at the Department for Work and Pensions continued this week, with the Secretary of State being dragged kicking and screaming to the House after trying to sneak out a major delay to his flagship universal credit programme two hours before the autumn statement. Despite wasting many millions of pounds on useless IT and admitting that he will fail to meet his already extended deadline, he farcically claimed in the House that the entire programme was “essentially…on time”. On that definition, living standards are essentially soaring, the badger cull is essentially a success and England is essentially winning the Ashes.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, especially for her birthday greetings. I heard the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), tell us about her grandmother’s 100th birthday today, and it is great that I have a way to go. I am encouraged by that thought; I am of course now more than halfway there.
	The hon. Lady asked about the business that was on Monday’s Order Paper. I am very glad that we could rearrange the business on Monday to have the tribute debate, which was one of those occasions when the House demonstrated its capacity to capture the nation’s mood and speak on its behalf. Of those items of business, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on defence reform on Tuesday that he would have made on Monday, and we dealt with the statutory instrument relating to terrorism on Tuesday that would otherwise have been debated on Monday. I hope to be able to announce a date for the Intellectual Property Bill when I announce future business in the new year.
	The shadow Leader of the House asked about the IPSA report that has been published this morning. Like other hon. Members, she will have heard what the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, and I hope that IPSA very clearly hears exactly what the party leaders have said. It is incumbent on hon. Members across the House who disagree with its judgment to make that very clear to IPSA. I have done so on behalf of the Government, making it clear that IPSA should take into account the public sector pay environment; our conclusion is that IPSA has not done that and should reconsider. The report is not a final determination, in the sense that IPSA must have a statutory review after the election, and it has made it clear that it will do so. I hope that such points will be made forcefully, so that IPSA arrives at such a reconsideration on that basis.
	The hon. Lady asked about the badger cull. There was of course a debate yesterday, and the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), responded to it. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues will continue with the pilots—I stress that they are pilots and give us an enormous amount of information about the mechanisms by which a badger cull can be pursued. Colleagues in the House and people outside need to be aware of the enormous cost and the tens of thousands of cattle that have been slaughtered as a consequence of the failure to tackle bovine TB previously. That has to be tackled, and the question is how we can do it most effectively. The pilots will give us the information that we need.
	I was pleased that the hon. Lady said that there was a need to follow up on the autumn statement. Although time is tight, any opportunity that we have to follow up on the autumn statement will be welcomed by Government Members. It will give us an opportunity to debate the improvement in the growth forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility; the progress that we are making on cutting the deficit; the freeze on fuel duty all the way through to 2015, which will mean that the price of fuel will be 20p per litre lower by the end of the Parliament than under Labour’s plans; and the reduction in the burden of business rates. Like many colleagues in the House, I spoke to small businesses on Saturday who expressed their support for the reduction in business rates that the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement.
	Such a debate would also give us the opportunity to talk about how we can raise living standards. That can be achieved only with a stronger economy. It comes ill from any representative of the Labour party who stands at that Dispatch Box to follow the example of the shadow Chancellor and fail to recognise—indeed, to be in complete denial of—the simple fact that the reason why living standards in this country have suffered is that the economy shrank under Labour, in the worst recession for a century, owing to a 7.2% reduction in national output. The only way in which we will be able to raise people’s living standards is by strengthening the economy, which the coalition Government are doing.
	Finally, it was a bit rich of the hon. Lady to speak of a “fiasco” at the Department for Work and Pensions on a day when the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions could not decide whether the state pension would be inside or outside the welfare cap. She replied as she did because Labour has it in mind to curb increases in the state pension in order to raise benefits. That is not a judgment that the Government will make.
	Finally, I recall that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—

Chris Bryant: You’ve said finally already!

Mr Speaker: Order.

Andrew Lansley: Yes, two finallys for the price of one.
	The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said yesterday that the shadow Secretary of State could not tell the difference between a write-off and a write-down—between a write-off and a depreciation. The Labour party is lecturing us about useless Government IT schemes after what it left! In the Department of Health, I had to take £2 billion out of the contract costs for an NHS IT scheme that was not delivering. Even after I had taken £2 billion out, we were still left with virtually £5 billion of committed contractual costs. The last Government could not run an IT scheme in a brewery!

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, a great many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I remind the House that there is a statement by the Chair of the Liaison Committee to follow and then two debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench
	Business Committee. There is, therefore, heavy pressure on time and pithiness from Back and Front Benchers alike is imperative.

Peter Bone: Does the Leader of the House agree that, as usual, the shadow Leader of the House was talking this country down? It was outrageous of her to suggest that we will not win the Ashes.

Andrew Lansley: I think that the shadow Leader of the House was intending to make a joke, but to make a joke at the expense of our team in the Ashes test series shows very poor judgment.

Barry Sheerman: This morning we heard about cuts to the mental health budget. We are supposed to have a national health service that treats mentally ill people, young and old, in a respectful way. That requires resources. What will the Leader of the House do about the Government policy to cut those vital services?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will remember that it was this Government who in 2012 for the first time introduced a requirement—a duty—in the NHS that mental health issues should have parity with physical health issues, and that must of course be reflected in the way that clinical commissioning groups commission services. There is a structural issue, however, that I experienced when I was Health Secretary and that I fear continues. Many of the services that are commissioned and paid for from NHS providers are paid for under a tariff. Therefore, if somebody requires treatment, the provider gets paid for that, but as a consequence, the clinical commissioning group—mental health services are substantially not on tariff—gets a block grant. After the tariff expenditure has been calculated by the commissioners, the amount available for the block grant is often being squeezed. That is why mental health providers wanted a tariff basis, although they have not yet got it consistently. I hope the commissioners, NHS England and Monitor will continue to make progress on that.

Pauline Latham: Although there are large companies in my constituency, Mid Derbyshire has a wide range of small and medium-sized businesses. George’s Tradition, a local chain of award-winning fish and chip shops, employs a large number of young people. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the abolition of national insurance contributions for under-21s?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and delighted that after the autumn statement last Thursday, on Tuesday we were able to table a new clause to the National Insurance Contributions Bill that will bring into law the opportunity to reduce national insurance contributions for those under 21 who earn less than £813 a week. As John Cridland of the CBI said:
	“Abolishing a jobs tax on employing young people under 21 will make a real difference and help tackle the scourge of youth unemployment.”
	That will be the second time in this Parliament that we have been able to abolish a jobs tax.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I remind the House that Members’ questions should bear some relation to next week’s business. That is the essence of business questions. I know we will be led along the path of virtue on that matter by Mr Kelvin Hopkins.

Kelvin Hopkins: Last week it was reported that one in five hospital admissions are a result of alcohol abuse, and thousands of babies are still born every year damaged by alcohol consumed during the mother’s pregnancy. May I ask the Leader of the House for a debate on the Floor of the House in Government time on our serious and growing alcohol problems, and what the Government propose to do about them?

Andrew Lansley: I share the hon. Gentleman’s continuing concern about the abuse of alcohol. The issue is not the overall consumption of alcohol in this country, but the extent to which there is abusive use of alcohol, and to which young people are accessing alcohol, and the consequences that flow from that. I cannot promise a debate immediately, but following the alcohol strategy that the Home Secretary announced last year, I look forward in the new year to further statements in the House on how we take that strategy forward.

George Freeman: Yesterday the UK hosted the G8 dementia summit, which had strong international support for the leadership shown by the Secretary of State for Health and the Prime Minister in putting dementia at the front of the G8, and the international challenge and fight against disease. May we have a statement or debate in the House to allow all parties to discuss how we can do more to change the way we think about dementia, from its being something that every old person gets to becoming a disease, like cancer or AIDS, that with effort, collective funding and new science and technology we will defeat?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I, like Members across the House, was impressed by the support brought together by this country and the Prime Minister in following the issue up at the G8 summit. Colleagues will recall the G8 summit on HIV/AIDS and how that led to a worldwide acknowledgement of the nature of the problem and the removal of stigma in addressing it, as well as investment in research and treatment. We need all of that and more for dementia, because the scale of the task and the challenge is immense and there is no time to lose. The pace at which an ageing population is leading to rising numbers of people with dementia means that immense costs will be associated with care if we do not make great improvements in research and treatment.

Margaret Ritchie: May we have a debate on the commissioning of the meningitis B vaccine, which is crucial for children? There are several such cases in my constituency and in the rest of Northern Ireland. Can time be made available for a debate?

Andrew Lansley: I fear I cannot promise time to the hon. Lady immediately, but I recognise the problem. The Government in England and the devolved Administrations work closely together on the development of the vaccination programme. If I may, I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department of Health to correspond with her, sharing that with the Northern Ireland Health Minister.

Craig Whittaker: Among other things, the purpose of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is to make the system open, honest and transparent, reduce the cost of politics and help raise the standing of MPs with the public. In light of IPSA’s announcement this morning of a 9.2% pay raise for MPs, along with a cost-neutral package of reforms, may we have a debate on whether IPSA is fit for purpose? It is totally out of touch with what is going on in the country, has not reduced the cost of politics and does nothing to contribute to raising the standing of MPs with such packages.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend will be aware that IPSA’s proposal is not a final determination, as the pay element is subject to a statutory review. We have made progress: in July, there was a package that would have cost more. IPSA has tried, as he will see in today’s publication, not to increase the cost of politics. Since it put the new scheme of costs and expenses in place, the cumulative reduction in total cost in the past three years is £35.8 million, so the cost of politics is being reduced. The Government are doing their bit. The Prime Minister and his colleagues reduced Ministers’ pay by 5%, compared with our predecessors, at the start of this Government, and that has been frozen for the life of this Parliament. There is a particular point relating to IPSA’s judgment on MPs’ pay at a time of continuing pay restraint in the public sector, on which it has to listen to party leaders.

Keith Vaz: Exactly a week ago, suspected al-Qaeda militants burst into a hospital in Sana’a killing 52 people, including all the doctors, nurses and patients. May we please have a debate next week on the situation in Yemen, and may I ask the Leader of the House not to ask me to raise this issue at Foreign Office questions? That would not help us. We need a debate next week.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure Members understand fully the seriousness of the situation to which the right hon. Gentleman rightly refers. I cannot promise time for a debate next week, but I am sure he is aware that there is scope for such matters to be raised before the Adjournment next Thursday under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee.

David Heath: Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the conduct of the Iraq war started in 2009 and has cost more than £8 million. The report was due to be published in 2012; a year later, there is still no sign of it. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), to come to the House to make a statement on when the report will be published, or on who or what is delaying publication?

Andrew Lansley: Sir John Chilcot wrote to the Prime Minister on 4 November to update him on the inquiry. He reported that continuing discussions on certain classified documents had delayed what is known as the Maxwellisation process, and hence publication of the report. Members and the public can see that correspondence, which is published on the Iraq inquiry website. The Government are committed to giving Sir John as much time as he needs to finish his report. Readers of that correspondence will be aware that the Government continue to act in good faith to enable Sir John Chilcot to complete his inquiry as soon as he may.

Chris Bryant: I warmly congratulate the Government on announcing that the first same-sex marriages will take place on 29 March, not least because this is Norman Tebbit’s birthday—so that’s one in the eye for the bigots, isn’t it? Will the Government explain next week, however, why they are delaying for so long the introduction of the upgrades to same-sex marriages for those currently in civil partnerships? France managed to do it a week after legislating, so why are we taking 18 months?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the announcement made by the Minister for Women and Equalities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), about the opportunity on 29 March. My recollection is that the legislation includes a requirement for a review of the situation relating to civil partnerships, so I suspect that is one thing that needs to be proceeded with in the first instance.

Nigel Evans: May we have an early debate on school transport? If a youngster passes an entrance exam to Clitheroe Royal grammar school, but lives more than three miles from it and has to go past another school on the way, they get no assistance with school transport costs, which is hugely discriminatory. We should be encouraging youngsters to attend the school of their choice.

Andrew Lansley: Like other Members, I am aware of the issue my hon. Friend raises. It is often quite complex: there is not necessarily no help at all, but that help may be limited to those in low-income households. I will ask my hon. Friends at the Department for Education to reply to him about those issues and how they see us being able to help promote parental choice in relation to schools.

Alison Seabeck: In the light of a constituency case, may I ask the Leader of the House to persuade the Secretary of State for Health to come to this House to make a statement on the lack of places available to sectioned juveniles? There appears to be a dearth of units around the country appropriate for that type of care, and commissioners have told me that they find it difficult, in the current health structure, to work out how best to place these young people.

Andrew Lansley: I will raise that issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If, as the hon. Lady says, it relates to a constituency case, I am sure she will write to him—if she has not done so already—and I shall encourage him to respond on the particular case and the general point.

Glyn Davies: The autumn statement included commitments to investment in several much-needed improvements to roads in England, and the Welsh Government will take similar decisions in Wales. May we have a debate or written statement on the establishment of a process to deal with improvements across the border between England and Wales, which have collapsed as a consequence of devolution?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point that I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about. I know he will share his interest in the issue. Devolution has many merits, but all of us in the devolved Administrations and the UK Government want to work together to deliver the infrastructure improvements we all want.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House indicate when we can have a debate on housing? I have raised this issue before. There are many people in this country who have no prospect of ever being able to afford a property, who have great difficulty accessing council housing association properties and who therefore have no choice but to enter the unregulated and—in London—incredibly expensive private rented sector. May we have a debate on Government proposals, if there are any, to regulate the private rented sector, including through a cap on rents or at least some kind of fair rents formula?

Andrew Lansley: I think I heard the makings of a contribution to the pre-recess Adjournment debate being formulated by the hon. Gentleman even as he asked his question.

Jeremy Corbyn: Just answer the question.

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I cannot at the moment promise the hon. Gentleman a statement, given the considerable pressure of legislative business, but when we can have one, I personally would welcome a debate on housing. One of the Government’s priorities is to turn around the 400,000-plus reduction in social housing under the last Government. We are setting out to ensure that more social and affordable housing is available, and we are seeing an increase of approximately one third in the number of planning approvals, which will sustain what I hope is now a rising trend from the position we inherited from the last Government on overall house building numbers.

Jason McCartney: May we have a debate on nuisance calls? Time and again, my constituents are being plagued by automated and unwarranted nuisance sales calls. These are often via unidentified numbers and can be particularly worrying for isolated people, especially the elderly who live on their own.

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will know that tackling unsolicited marketing nuisance calls is being addressed through measures in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport strategy paper published in July, to which I referred in previous business questions, and through an action plan to be published shortly. I know that Members have gone to the Backbench Business Committee to seek a debate in order to influence the
	content of that action plan. My hon. Friend and others may well have a sympathetic hearing from the Backbench Business Committee.

Graeme Morrice: The Leader of the House will be aware that, after two disastrous franchise agreements, rail services on the east coast main line have been publicly and successfully run since November 2009, achieving record levels of passenger satisfaction and returning hundreds of millions of pounds to the Treasury. May we have an early debate on the Government’s imminent plans to re-privatise the east coast main line service—against the best interests of the taxpayer and the passenger, and without full public consultation?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a debate immediately but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, a week today, on 19 December, my colleagues from the Department for Transport will be here, and I am sure they will be happy to answer that question if he is here to ask it.

Neil Carmichael: Given the launch of Formula E—an electric car racing championship, much like Formula 1—does the Lord Privy Seal agree that we should have an opportunity to promote a similar contest for aeroplanes made of composite materials and powered by electric batteries, because that is one way of pushing forward innovation in an exciting way, matching up our ambitions in the autumn statement?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He will know that the Government share his aspiration that by 2050, almost every car and van in the UK fleet will be an ultra-low emission vehicle. The huge UK automotive industry is at the forefront of the design, development and manufacture of such vehicles. The Government published in September their ultra-low emission strategy, “Driving the Future Today”. I have to say, however, that due to the limited capability of battery technology to store sufficient energy even for short flights, there is currently no prospect of which we are aware for commercial electric aircraft. However, I will encourage my colleagues at the Department for Transport to discuss his ambition further with him.

Russell Brown: The Leader of the House obviously heard the shadow Leader of the House talking about yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on the badger cull. Even the Chief Whip took the time to attend it. There is a demand and a real expectation on both sides of the House for this Chamber to have a lengthy debate on the issue. We all know about the plight of farmers, but we also realise that money is being wasted on this cull.

Andrew Lansley: I have taken note of that, and the hon. Gentleman is right that my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary listened carefully to yesterday’s debate. I will not add to what I said earlier, but I am listening.

Richard Graham: The Leader of the House will be aware that annuities are coming under increasing scrutiny. At a recent meeting of the all-party group on pensions, which I chair, it was made clear that millions of current and future pensioners would benefit considerably from improvements to annuities and from
	greater transparency, competition and flexibility. Will a Treasury Minister attend next week’s pre-recess debate, so that I can encourage the Treasury to focus on this area?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises a point of real importance. Many Members are, like me, aware of the pressure on annuitants buying annuities at times when yields can be relatively low, highlighting the importance of their getting the best possible deal, the best possible information and, frankly, the lowest possible charges. If my hon. Friend raised this issue in the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I cannot promise that a Treasury Minister would be there because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House is going to respond to it. My hon. Friend could, however, be confident that if he raised the matter, Ministers would be made aware of it and would listen to what he had to say.

Nicholas Dakin: The education of 16 to 18-year-olds already receives 22% less funding than the education of those aged between five and 16. May we have an urgent debate on the impact of the 17% cut in funds for the education of 18-year-olds that was announced this week?

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise an immediate debate, but I will ensure that my colleagues at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills respond to the part of the hon. Gentleman’s question that was relevant to further education colleges, and that the Department for Education deals with his point about the overall distribution of education funding.

Julian Sturdy: A business in my constituency has sadly fallen victim to a scam involving a bogus website, and I fear that such illegal activities are more widespread. Given the impact that cybercrime can have on small businesses, and given the work that the Cabinet Office is undertaking on cybercrime—it is set out in a written ministerial statement today—may we have a debate about this important issue on the Floor of the House?

Andrew Lansley: As my hon. Friend knows, cybercrime is often under-reported. Action Fraud is a national reporting service run by the National Fraud Authority, a Home Office agency, to which members of the public and businesses can report fraud and financially motivated cybercrime either online or by telephone. The Government have announced a £4 million campaign to raise awareness of cybercrime among businesses and individuals, including young people, so that they can protect themselves better. It will be launched in January, supported by the private and voluntary sectors. I cannot promise a debate at this stage, but my hon. Friend will have noted that in January, members of the public and businesses will have an opportunity to be better informed.

Tom Greatrex: May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy, perhaps next week? Although the Energy Bill finally received Royal Assent this week, it has become apparent in the last couple of days that the future of Eggborough power station, which accounts for up to 4% of UK capacity, has been placed in jeopardy
	because of a unilateral, last-minute and unexplained change to the early contract for difference allocation process undertaken by officials at the Department of Energy and Climate Change.

Andrew Lansley: I cannot promise a statement but, as the hon. Gentleman has raised an important and specific point, I will ask the Secretary of State for Energy to reply to him directly.

Philip Hollobone: Small Business Saturday was a big success in the borough of Kettering last week, when local people came out to support their local traders. Given that the beneficial effects of every £1 spent in the local economy are worth £1.76, I am sure that the Leader of the House, like me, is supporting the campaign by the Federation of Small Businesses to keep trade local. The aim is to encourage people to buy locally from now until Christmas. Will he ensure that, throughout 2014, we have regular opportunities to highlight the good work and endeavour of local small businesses and traders?

Andrew Lansley: Yes. I believe that we in South Cambridgeshire shared my hon. Friend’s experience, and I am sure that was the case throughout the country. Of course we want to support local businesses, but so do many consumers who require locally produced, well-differentiated goods. Small businesses are the economic powerhouse of the future. We have 400,000 more of them now, and small business formation is at a record level. That presents a tremendous prospect, as long as we continue to give those businesses the support they require.

Gordon Marsden: The Leader of the House said earlier that he would like the House to have more debates on the economic situation following the autumn statement, and he has just been talking about small businesses. I, too, participated in Small Business Saturday, in Blackpool. However, it is a long time since we had a proper debate on the Floor of the House about how the economic climate is affecting seaside and coastal towns such as Blackpool, which have been hit particularly badly by a range of funding cuts—and that includes small businesses. Will the Leader of the House consult his colleagues and arrange for a debate about seaside and coastal towns to take place on the Floor of the House in the near future?

Andrew Lansley: I should love to arrange a debate about seaside and coastal towns, which would be very useful. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that one of the differences between this and previous Parliaments is that a significant part of the time that used to be available to Ministers and the Leader of the House for debates that do not relate specifically to the passage of legislation has been transferred to the Backbench Business Committee. In my experience, the Committee has been extremely receptive, on a cross-party basis, to Members who approach it seeking debates.

Matthew Offord: I was pleased to visit Barnfield primary school in Burnt Oak last week, where I was told in terms how pleased both parents and staff are that the Government have announced free school meals for children from reception to year 2.
	Therefore, may we have a debate on the nutritional values of free school meals and their effects on early-years learning?

Andrew Lansley: We know from the pilots held between 2009 and 2011 that where free school meals are provided to primary pupils, educational attainment has improved, particularly among children from less affluent families. Studies also show that where universal free school meals have been provided, there are social and behavioural benefits to the children and they are more likely to eat healthily during the school day. We also know, of course, the risks associated with poor diet and childhood obesity, so in addition to the measures the Deputy Prime Minister has announced and that the Government will bring in from next September, I was pleased to see the latest figures on the national child measurement programme showing the overall obesity level of children coming into reception classes is down on what it was in the previous year, and lower than in 2006.

Fiona Mactaggart: When we discuss the Care Bill on Monday, we will be debating amendment 118, which gives the Secretary of State for Health a kind of Henry VIII power to direct mergers and changes in hospital provision. However, in cases where hospitals actually want to merge, the situation is overcomplicated by the role of the Competition Commission. Will the Leader of the House discuss with the Secretary of State for Health the tabling of an urgent amendment to that Bill to ensure that instead of our money being spent on expensive competition lawyers, it is spent on health provision?

Mr Speaker: I think the hon. Lady seeks a statement, too, or a debate in the House next week. [Interruption.] Indeed.

Andrew Lansley: I think the hon. Lady was referring to clause 118 of the Care Bill, which will be the subject of debate on Second Reading as announced, and I am sure she will be able to make those points then. For my part, I will simply say that it is a matter of necessity in any sector of activity for there to be proper competition rules. Monitor is responsible for those competition rules in relation to the health sector, except in relation to mergers, where the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission, or the new Competition and Markets Authority, have wide-ranging expertise across all sectors.

Bob Blackman: One of the items that did not make the oral statement on the autumn statement was the welcome news that the pre-1992 trapped annuitants—the most vulnerable victims of the Equitable Life scandal—will receive their compensation before Christmas, so may we have an urgent statement next week from the Minister responsible laying out exactly what the Government have done to compensate the victims of the Equitable Life scandal compared with the Labour party, which did nothing for 13 years?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I recall the past occasions when he has rightly raised this matter both with Treasury Ministers and with me at
	business questions. I am very pleased that his efforts on behalf of those pre-1992 Equitable Life annuitants have borne such fruit—and early fruit, before Christmas. We will, I hope, next week take the opportunities to make sure the people affected and the wider public are aware of this.

Tom Blenkinsop: Five weeks ago, on 6 November, I asked wither the Prime Minister thought that Tory councillor Abdul Aziz, whom the Prime Minister invited to a party in October, should return to face justice in Pakistan where there is an outstanding arrest warrant for him in connection with a brutal murder. The Prime Minister promised he would write to me. That was five weeks ago and I have had no response from the Prime Minister. May we urgently have a statement from the Prime Minister on this matter?

Andrew Lansley: I recall the Prime Minister saying he would inquire into this matter. Along with the hon. Gentleman, I do not know the outcome of that, but I will inquire into it myself.

Chris White: Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating everyone who worked so hard towards agreeing the city deal for Coventry and Warwickshire, including my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), who took part in my Adjournment debate earlier this year? May we have a debate on how we can deliver the most for our region through the city deal, which is expected to create over 15,000 new jobs by 2025?

Andrew Lansley: I am delighted that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) has been able to announce the agreement on the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal, along with city deals for the black country and other areas. I cannot promise an immediate debate on the subject, but it will be an encouraging occasion when the city deals collectively can be debated in the House. My hon. Friend’s example is a good one; focusing as it does on advanced manufacturing and engineering, it holds out the prospect of £66 million of investment and 8,000 new jobs in the advanced manufacturing and engineering sector, which will be important for our economic progress.

Diana Johnson: May we please have an urgent statement from the Government on segregation in our universities, in order to restate clearly our cross-party commitment to equality, especially in those institutions that are receiving public money?

Andrew Lansley: I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but I confess that it was news to me when I heard a discussion about it on Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. If I may, I will talk to the Minister for Universities and Science about the matter, to see whether it might be appropriate for him to report to the House.

Mark Pawsey: May we have a debate to review the pupil premium? I was delighted to learn this week that Avon Valley school in my constituency
	has had a “good” Ofsted report and that the inspectors found that the head teacher, Don O’Neill, and his staff were using the premium effectively to provide a welcome narrowing of the attainment gap between the students who benefit from the premium and their classmates.

Andrew Lansley: We as a coalition Government can take great pride in the way in which the pupil premium is impacting on the most disadvantaged pupils who need additional support, and in the ability of schools to offer that support in a way that allows the leadership of the school to make their own judgment on how the resources should be used. I am pleased to note that Avon Valley school is providing a good education. The chief inspector of Ofsted pointed out only yesterday that good schools require good leaders, and I understand that Avon Valley school’s Ofsted report highlights the strengths in the leadership and the teaching at that school.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the disgraceful, disreputable and frankly immoral conduct of Rothschild’s for its role in giving advice and support on providing mortgage equity release schemes to hundreds of thousands of pensioners in this country who are now facing extreme poverty in their later years instead of compensation from that big finance house? That is a disgrace. Will he help us to find time to debate the matter in the House?

Andrew Lansley: I am sorry; I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman was going to raise that issue, and I have not had an opportunity to talk to my hon. Friends at the Treasury about that case. However, he clearly feels strongly about the issue and if he is in his place next Thursday for the pre-recess Adjournment debate, I know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, would be more than happy to respond on behalf of the Government if he raises it at that time.

Kate Green: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) in asking for a debate, or at least a statement, on funding for students aged 18 in further education? My local college received a letter from the Education Funding Agency this week telling it that it will be £800 per student worse off compared with sixth-form colleges, which will be no worse off at all. Will the Leader of the House please arrange for an Education Minister to come to the Chamber to address this issue, by means of either a statement or, preferably, a full debate?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Lady will have heard the response that I gave to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I will of course discuss this with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Education to see how they might wish to update the House and perhaps Members individually.

Gavin Shuker: Yesterday, the UK and the US stopped all non-lethal aid going into northern Syria. This is yet another development that has not been debated in the House. We last had a debate on the matter in August, and the last statement was on 8 October. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Foreign Secretary to provide a statement on the matter before we break for the recess?

Andrew Lansley: In the light of these developments, I will of course talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Time for an oral statement is very limited and that could therefore be difficult to arrange, but I will see whether it is possible for a statement to be given to the House before we rise for Christmas.

Debbie Abrahams: In response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) about mental health funding, the Leader of the House implied that he was against NHS resourcing based on activity. So may we have a statement on why previous Health Secretaries and the current one have pushed for NHS resourcing based on activity? Will the right hon. Gentleman not then be supporting proposals that NHS England is considering next week, which emphasise health care resourcing based on activity and not on health care need or health inequalities?

Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Lady reads what I said, I think she will find that I was supporting the principle of tariff-based funding, which is an activity-based funding scheme. In that sense, NHS England, independently, is responsible for allocating resources to clinical commissioning groups and the mandate to it is clear: it should do that according to the principle of equal access for equal need.

Paul Flynn: City analysts from Liberum Capital have described the Hinkley Point nuclear power station deal as “economically insane” for offering a price for electricity at double the going rate, index linked and guaranteed for 35 years, at the cost of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Next week, there will be a decision on whether an investigation takes place in Europe—that would delay the power station for at least 18 months. So is it not crucial that next week Parliament decides its view on this astonishing rip-off for taxpayers?

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change came to this Dispatch Box and made a statement announcing the Hinkley Point deal. The hon. Gentleman should not construe the fact that the European Commission looks at it as anything to be remarked upon; it was inevitable and a matter of necessity that it would do so. It was always anticipated that that would happen.

Andrew McDonald: This week, we heard some marvellous tributes paid to Nelson Mandela. Next week, will the Leader of the House, together with the relevant House authorities, look into the possibility of dedicating a room in this place to the memory of the great man?

Andrew Lansley: We have not had occasion to remark upon it, but the House will of course be further commemorating and celebrating the life of Nelson Mandela this afternoon in the Great Hall at Westminster, and people will be coming from right across the country to do exactly that. Beyond that, it is probably a matter more for the House of Commons Commission or its
	Committees to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. If he wishes to put a proposal forward, I am sure it will be considered.

Matthew Offord: rose—

Paul Flynn: rose—

Mr Speaker: I think we will take points of order after the Select Committee statement. That would be seemly, and I am sure that Members will be patient enough to wait for that opportunity.

Liaison Committee Report

Mr Speaker: Before I call the Chair of the Liaison Committee to make the Select Committee statement, it might be helpful to the House if I explained briefly the new procedure, to which it agreed only recently. In essence, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement. Sir Alan will speak to his subject for up to 10 minutes—there is no obligation to take all that time —during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members who rise to put questions to Sir Alan on the subject of his statement and call Sir Alan to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. These interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning. The Backbench Business Committee does have the power to impose a maximum time limit on a statement and the exchanges that follow, but on this occasion it has chosen not to do so. I call the Chair of the Liaison Committee, Sir Alan Beith, most appropriately, if I may say so, to make the first formal Select Committee statement.

Alan Beith: Select Committee Statement Mr Speaker, I am delighted that we are able to make the first use of the procedure that you have so helpfully described to the House, and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling us to do so.
	The Liaison Committee usually reports on matters of process affecting Select Committees. For example, our 2012 report was on Select Committee effectiveness, resources and powers. This report relates to public policy and is unusual in that respect. It arose because we had shared concerns among Select Committees about how contracts are managed by Government Departments. That was one of the themes of our evidence session with the Prime Minister in September. We questioned him on a range of examples of poor Whitehall contract management, from the electronic monitoring of offenders to rural broadband and the west coast main line. We pressed the Prime Minister on the significant evidence that the civil service is not equipped to support consistent contract management and tends to be driven by short-term pressures rather than by long-term value for money for the taxpayer.
	There are of course many examples of civil service success. We point in our report to the successful delivery of the security for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games, despite the contractor’s failure, as a notable example. The Prime Minister told us:
	“There are some issues and problems in the civil service as well as that very good performance and we need to deal with them. But I think that we can deal with them with the plans we have in hand”.
	We are not convinced that the Government’s civil service reform plan for Whitehall is based on a strategic consideration of the future of the civil service. We are concerned that the reforms proposed by the Government will not be successful in tackling some deep-rooted problems in Whitehall.
	The weight of the evidence received by Select Committees across different subject areas led us to conclude that we should collectively report our concerns to the House. It
	is not enough just to address how best to increase Whitehall’s capacity to manage contracts. There needs to be recognition of the very different role that the civil service is now expected to carry out. It requires different skills and places new demands on the way that Whitehall works, and it is not just about civil servants. The role of Ministers needs to be examined. In our view, that requires a fundamental review of the role of the civil service. The Government have previously signalled that there will be a considerable change in that role. In July 2010, the Prime Minister promised
	“to turn government on its head, taking power away from Whitehall and putting it into the hands of people and communities.”
	Government Departments have also been required to change the way they work, while doing “more for less” to meet the financial constraints of austerity.
	The civil service was shaped by the Northcote-Trevelyan settlement of 1854, and the Haldane doctrine of ministerial accountability. The Haldane model, dating back nearly 100 years, did not anticipate the size of modern Departments or the vast range of public services, whether they are carried out by the civil service or contracted out. There has been no independent examination of the civil service since the Fulton committee’s report of 1968. That committee was expressly excluded from consideration of the relationship between Ministers and officials. The evidence we heard on the state of the civil service clearly demonstrates the need for a reconsideration of the traditional notion of ministerial responsibility, which is hard to apply in modern circumstances.
	A report published by the Institute for Government earlier this week described the current system of accountability as
	“opaque, out of date and creaking under the pressure of today’s demands.”
	Three months, ago the Public Administration Committee published “Truth to Power: how Civil Service reform can succeed”. It was a report of a year-long investigation into the state of the civil service. The Committee concluded that the Government’s proposed reforms to Whitehall do not look strategically at the challenges facing the civil service of the future. The Committee recommended the establishment of a parliamentary commission into the civil service. The aim of the commission would be to ensure that the civil service has the values, philosophy and structure capable of constant regeneration in the face of a faster pace of change.
	The Liaison Committee has endorsed that recommendation. We say that the Government should ask Parliament to establish a parliamentary commission into the civil service and that it should be a Joint Committee of both Houses, on the same lines as the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards. It is right for Parliament to consider the state of the civil service. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 clearly established the principle that responsibility now lies with Parliament rather than being a matter for the royal prerogative. A parliamentary commission could draw on the extensive experience of Government and the civil service in both Houses and its conclusions would enjoy cross-party consensus.
	Select Committees themselves benefited enormously from the fact that the Wright Committee had established a programme of reform that took effect immediately
	after the 2010 election. In the light of that experience, we recommend that the commission on the civil service be established as a matter of urgency and report before the end of this Parliament to enable its findings and recommendations to be implemented after the election. I commend the report to the House.

Andrew Miller: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had time to see the exchanges in evidence taken by my Committee, the Select Committee on Science and Technology, from Sir Mark Walport and Jon Day, one of the permanent secretaries in the Cabinet Office. Jon Day acknowledges that in his task of horizon-scanning there is a problem of joining up and he specifically talks about the silo mentality. He goes on to say that there are some enthusiastic people who have tried to solve the problem. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that underlines the fact that not only is there the need we have seen but that there is willingness in the civil service to go down this path, so the only obstacle is the Government?

Alan Beith: I have seen the evidence given to the Science and Technology Committee and it referred particularly—these phrases keep recurring—to silos and stovepipes as an analogy for Government Departments. When I talk to Ministers, including one or two who might even be on the Front Bench now, I hear similar language of concern about the silo mentality. It illustrates that there are fundamental issues that such a commission could properly consider.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend and the Liaison Committee for so emphatically endorsing the “Truth to Power” report produced by my Committee, the Public Administration Committee, and the central conclusion that there should be a commission on the future of the civil service. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely predictable that there should be natural resistance to that conclusion from a Government who wish to concentrate on winning the next election and from a senior civil service that will fight shy of scrutiny of problems and failures in the civil service and the degree of change that needs to be delivered. Should we not invite the Government to set those excuses aside? They have had three and a half years to reform the civil service. It is taking a long time. The inquiry will sit for only a year before it will report. Is that not an effective way of bringing change to Whitehall?

Alan Beith: I welcome my hon. Friend’s work on this as Chairman and that of his whole Committee. Clearly, almost all Governments have an inbuilt resistance to reform. That is a short-sighted view, however, because Governments need a civil service that can respond to the programmes that they want to carry out. The other problem that his Committee has rightly identified is that it is vital that civil servants tell the truth to power and feel enabled to do so. In our report, we identified examples where we felt that things had gone wrong because Ministers were told what they wanted to hear.

Margaret Hodge: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a full and important first report to the House from the Liaison Committee and, with him,
	endorse the importance of cross-party consensus on civil service reform if we are to ensure more effective government. Does he agree with my Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, based on the evidence we took from private contractors delivering public services, that if the Government want to see more effective and efficient delivery by those private contractors, there should be open-book accounting, the National Audit Office ought to be able to access those contractors as and when it deems it necessary, and freedom of information provision should be relevant and in place when private contractors are using taxpayers’ money to deliver public services?

Alan Beith: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and, of course, the Public Accounts Committee produced a number of reports that are considered in the report to which I am referring today. My Committee, the Select Committee on Justice, believes that, just as the public pound should be followed wherever it goes, the information to which the public are entitled should remain their entitlement when services are carried out by private contractors, and that contracts should be written in such as way as to ensure that that access to freedom of information is not impaired by any privatisation process.

Philip Hollobone: I commend the right hon. Gentleman and his Committee for his very powerful report, and for it being commendably brief and very much to the point. Rarely can there have been as damning a sentence in any parliamentary report as
	“The Prime Minister’s evidence to us in September did nothing to suggest that the Government has a coherent analysis of why things in Whitehall go wrong.”
	The Government have indicated that they want to see changes to the civil service, but is it not a shame that the Liaison Committee, the most powerful Select Committee in this House, has to seek the Government’s permission to set up a parliamentary commission? If the Liaison Committee does not get the answer from the Government that it wants, what will it do?

Alan Beith: That, as Ministers often say, is a hypothetical question that I ought not to answer. What I can say to my hon. Friend—and I thank him for his comments—is that the House could set up such a body, but the point of the exercise is to ensure that Front Benches are committed to the outcome. That is why we want those on both the Government and the Opposition Front Bench, aspiring as they do to be a Government, to recognise that it is in the interests of good government that we equip the civil service and enable it to do the job that it will need to do in the very different circumstances of today.

Anne Begg: The National Audit Office report on the implementation of universal credit said that the Department for Work and Pensions had developed a “good news” culture and a “fortress mentality”. As a result, Ministers were able to claim that they did not know how badly things were going. Who does the right hon. Gentleman blame for this? Is it the civil servants who were too afraid to speak truth to power, or the Ministers who run the Departments in such a macho way that they want to hear only of the solutions, not of the problems?

Alan Beith: In our report it was the first of those two possible explanations that we referred to. For Ministers not to have known for three years into the programme suggests that civil servants did not feel free to tell them what they needed to hear, but rather seemed to be telling them what they wanted to hear. Our primary task was not to look for which individuals to blame, but to look for what was wrong with a system that did not communicate early enough that things were going wrong.

Steven Baker: The civil service is ultimately founded on political power, whereas good business is ultimately founded on voluntary co-operation. Will the Committee accept that this categorical difference could be at the heart of any coherent explanation of the civil service’s failings? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that this might mean that the civil service is incapable of meeting his high ideals?

Alan Beith: That is a very interesting argument, which I would like to discuss with the hon. Gentleman at greater length some time. Both voluntary co-operation and the exercise of power seem to me to exist in both the public and the private sectors.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to endorse what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said and welcome his statement, and I am pleased to follow the Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, of which I am a member. Will there be no prescription in the terms of reference for the inquiry and will it have a broad canvas and be capable of taking views such as mine? I am a traditional supporter of the Northcote-Trevelyan-Haldane civil service. On that broad canvas could we look at the role of special advisers, the potential politicising of civil servants and other issues?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman raises some important issues, which have been discussed in the context of the Government’s own more limited reform, which they have canvassed hitherto. These are certainly issues that need to be looked at by such a commission. If it is the Government’s belief that there needs to be more personalisation of senior appointments in the civil service—I believe that is their view—that raises issues arising out of the traditional role of the civil service that ought to be considered carefully and be embarked upon with the authority of both Houses of Parliament in the kind of context that such a commission could set.

Stephen Barclay: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we would be more effective at holding officials to account if we improved our own accountability? For example, the Speaker’s Commission is still unelected and has no one from an intake after 2001, which is more than half the House. Select Committee powers are very opaque. We have parliamentary orders ignored, as in the case of the BBC with pay-offs. We give significant powers to officials on Bill Committees and do not have the expertise of Members with recognised experience in those areas. Should we not be showing a little more and telling a little less, even when it comes to savings and transformational change, which is what we are seeking from Whitehall but not always delivering ourselves?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman leads me into areas covered by other Liaison Committee reports on Select Committee effectiveness, but I think that I can reasonably say that the role and effectiveness of Select Committees has changed significantly over the course of this Parliament, in part as a result of a series of reforms agreed prior to the last general election and then brought into effect. That is the model that has led us to propose the civil service commission in this case.

Jeremy Corbyn: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s statement, which I think is a welcome step forward. Following the previous question, I agree that Select Committees need more definitive powers. I think that they should be able not only to set up commissions, but, if necessary, and in extremis, to introduce their own legislation when the Government refuse to do so. We need to shift the balance of power towards Parliament and away from the Executive as far as we can. Following the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), what consideration has been given to the size, quantity and value of private contractors working on civil service functions, often core functions, and does he believe that that undermines the whole role of the civil service, as a Government-employed service, in giving robust advice to Government, rather than commercially-driven advice and running of services?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman is a much-valued member of my Justice Committee and himself provides evidence of the valuable work that can be done in Select Committees. The extent to which services should be either carried out directly by Government or contracted out to the private sector is a matter of legitimate political argument, although Governments of quite different political persuasions have extended the role of the private sector in that regard. One thing that united Select Committee Chairs from different political backgrounds was the point that the civil service must have the necessary
	equipment for effective contracting when those processes are engaged in and that at every stage it should tell Ministers what they need to hear, not just what they want them to hear.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last, but certainly not least, Paul Flynn.

Paul Flynn: Has the Chair of the Committee observed that this Government, possibly more than any other, have followed the traditional practice of blaming all problems on their predecessors, then on the European Union and then on the civil service? The civil service’s overriding weakness is the great ethos of the unimportance of being right, because those who spoke truth to power are the ones whose careers have withered, and those who spoke comforting untruths to power are the ones whose careers have prospered and who have got to the top. Can he give us an assurance that the Committee, in the splendid work it is doing, will follow what other Committees, such as the Public Accounts Committee, have done by saying that we need to respect, value and continue the great contribution that the independence of the civil service has made to this country over many years?

Alan Beith: The hon. Gentleman made some comments on which I would hesitate to give a collective view on behalf of the Liaison Committee, which comprises Members of very different political persuasions, but he is right to emphasise the value of the civil service and the fact that we need a public service. It must be a public service that is capable of not only telling truth to power, but carrying out the decisions that democratically elected Governments make. Getting that balance right exercised the Northcote-Trevelyan reforms and was a consideration in the Haldane reforms. It is time that we looked again at how we can maintain the important and fundamental principles on equipping the civil service for the very different and challenging tasks that we place upon it today.

Points of Order

Huw Irranca-Davies: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I gave you notice earlier this morning of the broad context of this point of order, but I will now present the details. At 17.55 yesterday evening I received an e-mail informing me that the Secretary of State for Wales would be visiting my constituency this morning. I am pleased that he is visiting Ogmore, because he does not do so often—in fact, he never has. I responded immediately, because I was fortunate enough to be at my desk until late in the evening. At 7.4 this morning I received an apology for the late notice but no details of where he was visiting in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), even though I had requested them. At 9.43 this morning, following prompting from my hon. Friend, a subsequent e-mail clarified where the Secretary of State was going in the full itinerary. At 10.30 am the visits began. A less charitable Member might think that there had been an intention to avoid my being there to accompany the Secretary of State. Mr Deputy Speaker, will you clarify what the protocol is for informing hon. Members of visits to their constituencies?

Lindsay Hoyle: It is not a matter for the Chair, but it is very good practice, which has happened, that a Member is informed of another MP going into their constituency. It is up to the Minister whether they want to give details of the visit, but it is always good practice to let the MP know, because—who knows?—they may be able to help with it, and I would have thought that it was beneficial to all for the sake of better communications. I am sure that everyone will have taken that on board.

Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. A unique procedure was followed very recently in this House when the people at the head of the security services gave evidence to a Select Committee. Unfortunately, this was not the elevating experience that it might have been; it was one that was probably demeaning to this House. There are reports that the questions were notified to the witnesses and that they were carefully manicured questions, and there were even allegations of the answers being rehearsed. That is not in the spirit of scrutiny that this House has followed for years. We now hear reports that the same heads of security are not willing to give evidence, or have possibly been advised by Ministers not to do so, to another Select Committee—the Home Affairs Committee —where there would be proper scrutiny without pre-publication of the questions. Is this not a matter for you, as Deputy Speaker, to investigate?

Lindsay Hoyle: Absolutely not, but I know that the hon. Gentleman has a very good record of using other avenues to pursue matters, and I am sure that he will not give up just because it is not a matter for the Chair. I look forward to him continuing in other ways.

Fishing Industry

Frank Doran: I beg to move,
	That this House has considered the fishing industry.
	I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), the new fisheries Minister, to his first annual fisheries debate. There was a time when these debates were fairly rowdy affairs, but I think he will find that it is a bit more sedate now. I suppose that is a reflection of the decline of the industry.
	However, fishing is still extremely important. The industry is responsible for about 1% of GDP. There are about 6,500 vessels in the fishing fleet throughout the UK. It still employs 12,500 fishermen, nearly 7,000 in England and Wales, 5,000 in Scotland, and 700 in Northern Ireland. It is clearly an industry that benefits the country in a range of ways, not just economically—for example, the health properties of fish are well known. It is important that we keep a vibrant and viable fishing industry.
	Of the top 10 ports for landings in the UK, three are in England and seven are in Scotland. That shows the strength of the Scottish fleet. Peterhead, which on last year’s figures landed over 110,000 tonnes of fish, is way ahead of every other port. Given the volume of fish landed in Peterhead, it is no surprise that the Grampian region, where my constituency is, dominates the processing industry, along with Humberside. My own city of Aberdeen was once the No. 1 port, but that was many years ago, and most of the harbour where the fishing boats used to deliver fish is now given over to the oil and gas industry. That is a very significant change.
	I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing time for this debate. It was once provided in Government time, but for a number of years now the Backbench Business Committee has been the route for us to secure it. It has been traditional to commemorate those who were killed in the industry in the performance of their work. The latest figures I have are for 2012 and they show an improvement. Six deaths and 44 reportable injuries are slightly below the norm for the industry, but that is still a serious number of accidents. I know that efforts are being made, supported by Government, to improve the safety record in the North sea, but it is still a major problem.
	I want to focus on two issues that are of major concern to the industry. The first is the serious consequences of the impasse between us, the European Union and Iceland with regard to the way in which Iceland and, to a lesser extent, the Faroes have been exploiting the mackerel and pelagic fish in their area. The Minister will by now be well aware of the processes that take place during the fishing year: surveys are conducted and data collected and analysed, and the results are passed on to scientists, who give us advice on the health of stocks and what tonnages may be fished. The European Commission then presents us with a policy statement of intention and approach, and we go through a few more stages before conducting negotiations with Norway about the common species we share. The Administrations of Iceland and the Faroes are also involved in that.
	Those negotiations with Norway have not taken place this year, so it would be helpful if the Minister could give an indication of when they are likely to be held. The industry’s view is that there will be no opportunity for the Commission to discuss the quotas and decide on the total allowable catches until the bilateral discussions with Norway and other countries have taken place.
	The likeliest estimate, according to the reports I have read, is that that will happen towards the end of January. That means that our fishing fleet is expected to cope and survive through the difficulties they face for a whole month of the fishing year without knowing what their TACs are for the year. It is important to know exactly when discussions will be held with Norway in particular, and when the TACs will be fixed, so that there can be some certainty. Many of the boats require refurbishment and maintenance and some fleets even need to acquire new boats, so those figures are crucial for them to be able to get the necessary loans and help from the banks.
	This is a major problem for those based onshore. Aberdeen cannot be said to have a fleet anymore—it is virtually non-existent—but it is still a big centre for processing and our processors depend on the stocks that are brought ashore. Given that the fish are among the most popular in sales terms—including cod, haddock, North sea herring, North sea mackerel, whiting, plaice and saithe—a chain of problems and responsibilities needs to be taken into consideration.
	The other major issue I want to focus on is reform of the common fisheries policy. Over the past few years, as this process wound its way slowly through all the stages it needed to go through, there was real optimism that progress would be made towards a new type of fishing and a new management and regulation regime in the North sea in particular and right across the waters around the UK and beyond. The industry is, however, becoming more and more aware of the very difficult relationship that now exists between the European Commission and the European Parliament. It is absolutely right to have an element of democracy and to ensure that the Parliament is aware of the issues and involved. I am not privy to the detail of that relationship, but its consequences have been reported to me by fishing organisations and fishermen, and there are concerns about some of the most important parts of the policy reforms.
	The first concern is about regionalisation, on which there seems to be a major impasse. I have had a report from the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations on its serious concerns. It states:
	“How cooperation between member states at regional-seas level and close cooperation of regional advisory councils in the formulation of fisheries policy will work in practice are open questions... And the clock is ticking on the deadlines set by the European institutions.”
	Will the Minister update us on that?
	Another concern relates to landing obligations. Everyone is in favour of a policy to reduce or extinguish discards, but the practicalities of getting it into operation show that real problems need to be addressed.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentioned discards. I know of a boat on the west coast of Scotland that in September and October sadly dumped about 400 boxes of spurdog,
	because there was no quota to land that species. I asked the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), what exactly this part of the discards policy means for that particular species, and the answer was to return them to the sea, even though they were dead. Should there not be some sort of quota allocation for by-catch spurdog, because dumping it back into the sea puts pressure on other shark fisheries worldwide? The system is perverse. Some fish are dead already, but that causes other fish to be fished in other places.

Frank Doran: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. All of us are ashamed of the level of discards, but at the end of the day, that has been part—

Neil Parish: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Frank Doran: Of course.

Neil Parish: Mr Deputy Speaker is frowning at me, but I will try to be brief. Does not the hon. Gentleman think that over the years the problem of discards has been seen as far too difficult to deal with, but that we must now get stuck into finding a method of ensuring that we can land what is caught? I do not agree with him when he says, “Oh well, this, that or the other”; in the end, we have got to do it.

Frank Doran: I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely. I had not quite finished my sentence, but we are all opposed to discards: it is criminal to throw good fish back into the sea. We have a major problem in this country in that the majority of our fisheries are mixed ones, but the European Commission operates on the basis of species and does not take account of mixed fisheries. We have not resolved that problem, but it needs to be worked on, so he is absolutely right.
	To return to the issues that should be considered, the NFFO states that, in what is apparently now being formulated, there is a potential problem for
	“choke stocks (where the exhaustion of the quota for a minor species prevents vessels from catching their main economic species).”
	There is also the potential
	“to put into reverse the progress that has been made over the last decade in reducing fishing mortality and achieving high levels of compliance”,
	which is a serious issue. Other problems involve:
	“Treatment of species with high survival rates”;
	and, finally:
	“Whether Norway will sanction quota flexibility for North Sea…stocks.”
	I will be interested to hear from the Minister about that.
	I do not want to sound totally negative, because it is important that we are not, but there are serious concerns. We have always been concerned about EU bureaucracy, but it seems to have reached a different level in relation to the fishing industry because of the involvement of the European Parliament. The prospect of a rejuvenated fishing industry under a sensible new system of regional management that operates properly, in which the TACs are determined at a relatively local level and which takes account of discards and all the rest of it, is being much delayed. It is important that the Minister responds to
	the points that I have raised, but also that we hear what approach he will take on these issues at the December Council.
	Most of the communications that I have received from the fishing industry in my 20-odd years of life as a Member of Parliament who represents a fishing city have been pretty depressing. That is part of the strategy that is adopted by the industry. However, in my recent discussions with Barrie Deas of the NFFO, he was good enough to supply some good news stories and I think it is worth reporting those. The NFFO states that
	“the general trend in fishing mortality (fishing pressure) right across the North East Atlantic (including the North Sea and Baltic) since the year 2000 has been downwards. In fact a reduction of about 50% across all the main species groups has been observed by ICES.”
	It is important to recognise that much of that is to do with the change in culture among the fishermen in the fleet. I am delighted that, under the guidance of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the Scottish fleet has been in the vanguard of that.
	Barrie Deas gave me a few examples of good news stories. The biomass for North sea plaice is
	“above anything seen in the historic record.”
	Western and North sea hake
	“has seen a dramatic resurgence, is seen now in areas where it has not been abundant and justifies a 50% increase in the TAC.”
	The Minister can take that information with him. There are similar good news stories about other species of fish.
	There is good news on the fisheries science partnership. For years, it has been obvious that there is a big gulf between the fishermen and the scientists who present the evidence to the European Commission that determines the likely outcome for TACs each year. The fact that there is a serious partnership that is supported by Government and by various EU institutions, and that projects are arising from that, is certainly very good news.
	I will finish on that point. I simply say to the Minister that this is an important debate for those of us who still have a fishing industry in our communities and it is an important debate for the country. There are many issues in which we might want some involvement during the year, but this is the main debate in which we have an opportunity to focus on the industry. Members of the all-party parliamentary fisheries group had very good relations with his predecessor and were sorry to see him go. If the Minister can keep up to his standards, we will all be grateful.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and others on securing this timely debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to take place in the Chamber so that there can be more contributions than there have been to such debates in Westminster Hall.
	I welcome the Minister and the shadow Minister to their new responsibilities. I thank them for the contributions that they made as members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and remind them that
	they both participated in our excellent report in response to the proposals for the reform of the common fisheries policy.
	I join the hon. Member for Aberdeen North in commemorating those who have lost their lives in the fishing industry. Fishing and farming are the two most dangerous industries and they both suffer fatalities and other losses. We should recognise that element of the work that fishermen do in bringing the fish to our plates. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) who, despite the personal loss she suffered, continues to take a great interest in the fisheries industry.
	Today’s debate is timely, and I pay tribute to fishing ports across the country. The port of Filey has historically enjoyed coble boats—that is why we have Coble Landing—and when I was first elected, six families still depended on fisheries off the North sea coast from Filey port. Sadly, however, for a number of reasons—not least that they needed a trailer to bring the coble boats on to shore—the cost has been prohibitive, and I understand that they now fish mostly out of Bridlington, which I think is the largest shellfish port in England, if not the UK.
	The historic common fisheries policy agreement that was agreed by the European Parliament this week is to be welcomed and paves the way for new reforms to take effect on 1 January 2014. Notwithstanding that, I wish my hon. Friend the Minister well in his overnight negotiations. I hope he will be well equipped with refreshments to keep himself in good order, as he will obviously need to be on top form.

Neil Parish: Does my hon. Friend agree that although it is great that the European system is now grinding into place to ban discards—I wish the Minister well in that—the process must be kept going and indeed sped up? My knowledge of the EU, and I suspect that of my hon. Friend, is that it will take an awfully long time to get to a situation where we can stop discarding healthy fish. We need to speed up the system.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I agree with him. The opinion of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on this deal was published in February 2012 and the Government response in July 2012. It has taken three years of difficult negotiations, and I commend the fisheries Minister and his predecessor on the lead we took in securing a significant reform of what was deemed a fundamentally flawed common fisheries policy.
	Let me say why the reform is so important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned discards, and it is key that we do not replace discards at sea with discards on land. The Committee’s report concluded robustly that we must be imaginative about bringing fish on to land—having been born in Scotland, disappeared, and then returned there, I can say that different fish are eaten in Scotland to those eaten in England. If we can extend the palate and consumer taste to different types of fish and create new markets for existing fish, that would be a great way forward. As the report noted, celebrity chefs and others have a part to play in that by creating a novelty feature
	for dishes such as pollock, which I am sure would not be so widely eaten had it not been for chefs and others paving the way.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Lady calls for us to be imaginative in dealing with some of the problems that fisheries throw up. Twenty years ago I fished for spurdog as a targeted fish, but things have moved on and, as I said earlier, it is now a non-targeted fish often caught in nets. Spurdog comes in on boats, but under the landing obligation it looks as though it can be neither landed nor discarded. We will certainly need some imagination in dealing with spurdog that we cannot land or discard.

Anne McIntosh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in tasting some of that to see whether it is edible, and we could look at creating a new market.
	As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North said, the key points of the next stage of reform include a ban on the wasteful practice of discarding at sea perfectly edible fish for which there is no current market, a legally binding commitment to fishing at sustainable levels, and decentralised decision making that allows member states to agree measures appropriate to their fisheries.
	One of the most exciting parts of this reform is that for once we are going to focus more on the science—I think we have gone wrong with previous reforms of the commons fisheries policy because we have not done that. I am an avid watcher of “Borgen”, the Danish television programme, and I will include in my remarks with one or two references to Denmark. I am half Danish—I am very proud of that—and I studied in Denmark. As part of our report the Committee had the opportunity to visit Denmark and see practices that I hope will transform the regional control aspects. Science is particularly important there because Copenhagen is home to the headquarters of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—ICES—and if we followed more of the scientific base that it spends a long time producing, I believe we would all benefit.
	The health of fish stocks is assessed every six months by ICES, and the EU published an overall assessment of its advice in October 2013. It stated—this is from a Library note so it must be true—
	“that 39% of EU fish stocks are still over fished,”
	but that is down from 86% in 2009. In spite of that reduction in overfished stocks, the assessment goes on to say that trends giving rise to concern include, for instance, the fact that
	“the number of stocks under an advice to reduce captures to the lowest possible level… had increased.”
	I am sure the Minister will wish to focus on that. Being optimistic, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North concluded, Seafish, the industry body for the UK, has said:
	“there is reason for cautious optimism in the industry as we continue to see iconic stocks such as cod in the North Sea move towards recovery.”
	We must not rest on our laurels, and it is essential we follow the science. Where I would like the science to lead, and where I believe there is an example we can follow, is regional control, and I have a question for the Minister about that.
	I also worked for a number of years in Brussels in legal practice, and we must understand how we can get round the problem of fisheries still being an exclusive competence of the EU. If that situation remains, how
	shall we achieve regional control in practice? I believe that is a legal problem and not insurmountable. Again, I will turn to Denmark, because Denmark and Sweden have established regional control around Danish and Swedish waters that works extremely well. That is down to the size of the nets and meshing they use, and how they fish particular fisheries—I will not go into too much detail because it is well established. I hope the Minister will confirm that that model will be used. I understand that the new common fisheries policy brings decision closer to the fishing grounds, clarifies the roles and obligations of each of the players, and ends micro-management from Brussels, and that the Commission will agree with fishing nations in the region about the general framework, principles and standards, overall targets, performance indicators and time frames. Crucially, however, member states within that region will co-operate at regional level to develop the actual implementing measures. If it can be established, and all member states in the region agree to the recommendations being transposed into rules that will apply to all fishermen in the region, it will be a real game changer.

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is making a superb speech. She mentioned two key elements to reform, but does she agree that there is a third? History might reveal that that third element—a legal requirement to fish sustainably, to fish to maximum sustainable yield—is even more of a game changer. Is that not a key reform that will get our fisheries back on an ecosystem management basis?

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for that intervention, and it gives me the opportunity to record my thanks to my hon. Friend for the hours he spent on the groundwork to achieve a historic agreement. Sustainability is key, and sustainability will be proved by following the science. We went too far away from the science in the past; we need to hold to it in future.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Lady agree that the idea of regionalisation, as described by the EU, is perhaps one of the tremendous ways that the EU misleads us? The first meeting on the regionalisation of the north-west waters took place in Dublin on 12 November. The group includes the UK, Ireland, France, Belgium, Spain and the Netherlands—a pretty big region. We had thought that regions would be smaller than states, but at EU level they are multi-state organisations. It is better than what we had, but it is by no means local control—it is still a horse-trading arena.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman does the House a great service by pointing that out. I had understood that regions would relate to borders contiguous to the sea within which there would be fishing. We cannot get away from the fact that Spain had historical rights to fish in our waters before 1973. That is something the Minister will have heard about, and I am interested to know how Spain manages to muscle in. I pay tribute to my Spanish friends, in case they are reading this or watching it on television—we have an agreement not to discuss fishing, Gibraltar or Las Malvinas.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is the next logical step to make the regions the traditional fishing waters of each member state?

Anne McIntosh: Much as the hon. Gentleman is my friend, I am always cautious when he tempts me to go in a particular direction. If I may, I think we shall discuss that over a cup of tea.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend talks about Spain’s access to what, historically, were our waters. One problem is that once there is a common fisheries policy everybody muscles in, nobody more so than Spain. Spain will hoover up fish not only off our shores, but off Africa and anywhere she can find them. She is a menace and I am quite happy to say that in this House.

Anne McIntosh: As some of my best friends are Spanish, I hope they are not following the debate too closely. I am sure Spain would wish reciprocal access rights for our fisherman in its waters. Perhaps we can reach agreement on that basis.
	The new laws will allow countries working together regionally—under my definition of regionally, which does not necessarily include Spain—to move away from micro-management to true regionalisation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) said, to a legally binding commitment to fish at sustainable levels.
	Our report was so good that I would like to highlight one or two points. We called for decentralisation, rather than the Commission handing down, and for more research into selective fishing methods, which are important. We called for a cipher mechanism to reallocate fishing rights away from slipper skippers, and we called, again, for a register. My hon. Friend the Minister would not forgive me if I did not mention again our call for a register of who owns the current quotas.

Eilidh Whiteford: The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. My understanding is that the register was due to be published before the end of 2013. I am conscious that we are almost halfway through December. Is it still on track?

Anne McIntosh: The Minister and the House will have heard what the hon. Lady says. I await the Minister’s reply with great interest. The House sits for another whole week and I am sure we stand prepared to hear from the Minister on his return not just that he has brokered a good deal for Britain, but that he wishes to publish the register of fisheries.
	I am grateful for having had the opportunity to speak. I pay tribute to those who fish our waters and put themselves in harm’s way to bring fish to our plate. I pay tribute, too, to those who called for this debate. I wish the Minister great success in his negotiations on Monday.

Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to make what I hope will be a brief contribution to the debate. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and others for securing such an important debate on what is still an important industry. I welcome the new Minister, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his role and acknowledge the important work done by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
	I want to begin by paying tribute to the fishermen, in my constituency and elsewhere, who do a dangerous but important job on our behalf. We are reminded of the dangers facing fishermen by a report in today’s Daily Mail that the remains of 10 people discovered in Russia may be those of fishermen lost when the Gaul sank off Norway in 1974. The Gaul was the Ranger Caster when it sailed out of my constituency from North Shields. In that disaster, which was well documented, 36 men lost their lives. A number of them were from my constituency. In government, we were justified in supporting a survey that provided some of the answers. If this recent news brings further closure for the families—if there can ever be closure in such a situation—then I welcome it. They will be celebrating, if that is the right word, the 40th anniversary of the disaster in February next year. I pay tribute to the families who have worked so hard, not just in my constituency but in the wider area.
	Closer to home, I thank those who work every day to keep our fishermen as safe as they can be: the coastguard and, in particular, the volunteers of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the inshore boat at Cullercoats and the bigger boat in Tynemouth. We should be proud of our RNLI crews. They are brave and do things that I certainly would not be prepared to do. They play an important part in supporting our industry. I also want to pay tribute to the Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen in North Shields, under the inspired leadership of Peter Dade and Alex Hastie, who do so much to support the wider fishing community. Fishing is a dangerous job and a precarious business. We must not lose sight of the fact that, whatever its traditions and history, it is a business.
	I want to raise two points, which I make no apology for being very local as they will allow us to talk about the grand strategy and what the Minister will be about when he gets to Brussels. The first point is, I think, within the Government’s remit to resolve. The second is less of an issue and more of a short story concerning the current situation that faces fishermen in North Shields and other stretches of the north-east coast. I hope the Minister will bear that in mind during his deliberations.
	We all claim to have the most important ports in the country in our constituencies, but North Shields truly is the most important fishing port in the north-east. Despite that, it only retains one or two larger boats and a couple of dozen under-10-metre boats. It is a fraction of the size it was even in the relatively recent past. Fishermen there rely on a mixed fishery, and at this time of the year they particularly rely on the prawn fishery, but a few also rely—or did rely—on licences allowing them to use drift nets to catch salmon. In many cases, these licences have been handed down from generation to generation and have been an important part of fishermen’s incomes, yet over the years there has been a concerted effort to get rid of them, particularly—this is not a political point—under the Conservatives. The pressure has come from landowners in Northumberland and south-east Scotland who know they can make a great deal of money from fishing rights along the banks of their rivers, and concerted pressure has been placed on Ministers. Up until recently, the line was held, but the decision was made earlier this year—I am sorry to say—to phase out the licences.

Alan Beith: My constituency shares with the hon. Gentleman’s a significant involvement in this traditional fishery. The river fishery to which he refers is an important part of the economy of the Tweed and other rivers, but does he not agree that it in no way depends on driving out of business a few fishermen in small boats who exercise responsibly traditional and historical licences, and that the decision to close the fishery altogether is wholly unjustified?

Alan Campbell: I agree entirely on both counts with the right hon. Gentleman. Anecdotally, I am told that salmon stocks are relatively healthy and that there are salmon in more and more rivers in Northumberland and—I would imagine—in south-east Scotland as well. The fishermen themselves contribute to the hatchery that puts fish in at Kielder to ensure that stocks are buoyant. I understand that there is some dispute over salmon stocks—

Richard Benyon: rose—

Alan Campbell: I am sure the former Minister is about to tell us the other side of the story.

Richard Benyon: As the person who took that decision, I would like to put it on the record that although I did get pressure from angling interests, they were as nothing compared to the concerns I had about the impression we were giving at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organisation. These are mixed-stock fisheries, and we had given a commitment but we had not carried it out. The whole of the UK’s credibility for sustainable management of our fisheries was at question because of the stand we had been taking at NASCO. That was the primary reason for the decision I took.

Alan Campbell: I am sure that is the case from the former Minister’s perspective, but we are talking about 13 licences and a decision that, as far as I can understand, was largely one that we made. We presented this opportunity, his predecessors having withstood the pressure for a considerable period. Of course, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) said, we want anglers to have access to good stocks, but the former Minister knows as well as I do that there has always been concerted pressure, not from the anglers themselves who take their rods to the rivers, but from those who see this as an opportunity. Let me tell him this: it might be an opportunity for landowners to make some money, but it is also an opportunity for fishermen in some cases to survive on the back of these licences. This fishery is not an extra, but an important part of what they do.
	While we are on the relative buoyancy of stocks, I understand that the Environment Agency takes the same view as fishermen in saying, like the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, that there is enough for both. I still do not understand fully why the decision was made to phase out the licences and the fishery—and made without a debate in Parliament using order-making powers. My point is simple: the drift net salmon fishery in the north-east is a traditional fishery—what some call a heritage fishery. It is, by all accounts, sustainable. It is local and organised so that catches are limited, yet somehow vested interests appear to have won out. If the Minister has some spare time when he returns from
	Brussels, will he revisit this issue? The fishermen who will lose their licences believe it could be revisited before we pass the point of no return.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman mentions heritage fisheries. About 22 years ago, I worked in Gretna, on the border, on the M74. Working with me were gentlemen from Kirkpatrick Fleming who frequently went “haaf” netting on summer evenings, as they say in the ancient fisheries—“haaf” is apparently the Old Norse word for “ocean”. At a moment when we are looking for plurality and diversity, it would be sad if we took a step that would, as he says, ruin and end a centuries-old practice that people have carried on sustainably in many communities.

Alan Campbell: Not surprisingly, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I have always been careful, in the few fisheries debates I have spoken in, not to take too romantic a view of the past or the industry now. This is a business, and all I ask is that the Government apply to this case the same principles they talk about in wider fisheries policy. If we apply those principles, I cannot see how we arrive at the position the Government arrived at earlier this year. If we are not careful, the danger is that the livelihood of local fishermen will be lost, and without any great gain.
	I want to move to my second, broader point about what has happened in the past couple of months off my constituency. As I said, local fishermen rely heavily on the prawn season. Using relatively small boats, they make a living and keep the fish market going and the port working, but this year they have faced increased competition, perhaps as never before. They tell me it comes from larger twin-netted boats. I am told anecdotally that many of the crew are overseas fishermen—that should not be a big point, but it is a point they make. The boats clearly come from elsewhere. At the risk of falling out with my new hon. Friend—the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—I am told that many of them come from Scotland, but this is not an anti-Scottish thing, I assure him. The fishermen of North Shields are trying to make a living and stay in business, but the pressure on them has been intense this year. The word they keep using is “displacement”. When fishing restrictions are put in place elsewhere, the pressure goes on those parts of the fishery where stocks are relatively healthy.

Angus MacNeil: I understand exactly the hon. Gentleman’s point about displacement. We have a problem off the west coast of Scotland with boats whose nets are far too big or that have too much horsepower using up the kilowatt days allowed in the fishery, and the resulting payback time and lost days at sea cause great difficulty and angst on the west coast. I fully understand his point, therefore, but would make one point about crews from other countries: they are most welcome. When we see Filipino fishermen, we recognise that we have great seafarers in our midst. I only wish the immigration department would recognise that too and allow men from the Philippines to come here and work and be welcome in our communities.

Alan Campbell: We have not fallen out, as I thought we might earlier, but I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board, although my fishermen might be less willing to share his view on the role of the immigration department—but that is a slightly different matter.
	In the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North said earlier, I worry about what delays in setting the quotas might mean. If there is uncertainty in the system, will it add to displacement and result in even greater pressure while we await the quotas? That is very important. I am told that no rules have been broken. The organisations he referred to, which are normally very officious in applying the rules, have been ominously slow and silent on this matter. As a result, fishermen in my constituency feel under pressure. They feel under pressure when they read about marine conservation zones. They are not anti-environment—they are some of the greatest environmentalists hon. Members would ever want to meet—but they read what has been written and they feel under pressure. When they hear that we are going to have more offshore, rather than onshore, wind farms, they wonder what the effect will be on their industry. They feel the cost of living—as we all do—on their families. As a result, they feel under threat.
	My question to the Minister is relatively straightforward. I hope he will be able to say what the reforms to the common fisheries policy that he is doubtless going to outline to us will mean for fishermen. What will regional management, reliance on scientific evidence, giving greater access to the under-10-metre fleet and so forth mean for the fishermen in my constituency? In the light of the problems raised about the implementation—and possible delay—of the new policy, what assurances can the Minister provide for my constituents? They want to know whether next year will be easier or more difficult for them. If the Minister cannot confirm that fishermen can look forward to a better future, I hope he can say that they can look forward to at least a future.

Andrew George: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), and I congratulate him on emphasising the importance of safety at sea and on repeating what the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said in opening the debate about the bravery of those who work so hard in such difficult conditions and who face significant danger to put the fish on the plates of people all around the United Kingdom. We are about to commemorate the 40th year of the tragedy of the Gaul, and in constituencies such as mine, literally scores of fishermen have lost their lives in pursuit of this vital industry.
	In opening, I want to pay a significant tribute to the former Fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who achieved a tremendous amount during his period of office—with the exception, I have to add, of his decision on the salmon drift-net fishery in the north-east. That does not impact directly on my constituency, but the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell) and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) certainly raised important issues about that.
	Having ranged as widely as I intend to, I shall now become extremely parochial for the rest of my speech, as I shall look into the impact of negotiations on common fisheries policy reform on the vitality of the fishing industry in West Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. My constituency has a significant port in Newlyn, as
	my hon. Friend the Minister, who represents Camborne and Redruth, well knows. The amount of fish landed in Newlyn every year is of considerable value, and the fishery, in which the over-10 metre fleet is unique, is an ultra-mixed one. The by-catch of spurdog and porbeagle in the ultra-mixed fishery of Cornwall is particularly significant, and I have raised issues about this on behalf of the industry for the past decade. The problem is nothing new to the fishermen in my area.
	I know that the UK Government are engaged with the Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, as is the Cornish fleet with scientific projects and research such as the Neptune project. All this engagement and work will be perceived as pointless if no change to the policy results and no attempt is made to provide a pragmatic solution to this important issue.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman feel that one problem for politicians is the pressure that comes from non-governmental organisations to restrict this type of fishery? It can lead to the perverse outcomes I mentioned earlier. The supply is reduced but demand remains the same so that shark fishing starts to happen in another part of the world. Meanwhile, the by-catch here is returned to the water dead—a double hit that emanated from probably good intentions, albeit ignorant ones.

Andrew George: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is exactly the point I raised on previous occasions. Although I have every sympathy and agree with the sentiments expressed by the NGOs—we do not want to take action that will have a detrimental impact on, or undermine the viability of, important species such as spurdog—the fact is that we need to engage in trying to find a practical solution to the problem, and simply saying that we are going to ban the landing of these fish does not necessarily mean that a single spurdog will be saved. We need to find more effective methods of achieving the desired outcome. I hope that the NGOs will engage with the Government and, in our case, with the Cornish fishing fleet, the Neptune project and so forth to find a practical solution rather than simply campaigning and saying that what is being done is never good enough.
	Another theme running through the debate—one feels that one is repeating oneself from the same hymn sheet—is the arbitrary use of the 20% precautionary element of the quota-setting process, particularly where the science is insufficient for the setting of an effective quota. I hope that the Minister will talk to the industry and come to understand not just the anecdotal evidence, because a lot of work is being undertaken nowadays with scientists going on board many of the vessels and subsequently sharing their data and information.
	The reasoning behind some of the annual quota cuts is unjustifiable and, in many cases, counter-productive because no fish are saved. I urge the Minister, rather than to run through the impacts on each fish species of the proposed quota settlements for next year, to look closely at the representation he received last week from Paul Trebilcock on behalf of the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I think that a cogently argued case has been made, which I hope the Minister will use as a brief. I know that Paul will be available and at hand if the Minister needs any technical assistance in the negotiations.
	Another key issue that crops up time and again in the fisheries debate is the perceived conflict between commercial fishermen and sea anglers—something that is played out in our debates and in a lot of the discourse that goes on in Cornwall, for example, in connection with the Cornwall inshore fisheries and conservation authority, and in the Isles of Scilly, where there is a separate IFCA.
	One significant pinch point relates to the setting of the bass minimum landing size. I corresponded about that both with the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury, who I see is leaving his place, and the present Minister. At the end of the day, angling contributes £2 billion to the economy and a total of 23,600 jobs. The angling fraternity is keen to ensure that the Government recognise its important role for the UK economy, especially when about 75% of the fish caught by anglers, including those caught at sea, are returned alive to the water.
	A number of issues have arisen in Cornwall. For instance, bass do not spawn until they reach a minimum of 42 cm, but the minimum landing size in Cornwall—which is higher than those in the rest of the country—is 37.5 cm, and elsewhere it is 36 cm. We need a healthy bass minimum landing size. Local sea anglers are arguing for the minimum to be raised to 48 cm in order to allow the fish to breed at least twice before there is a chance of their being caught, and I think that that is a justifiable argument.
	According to this year’s report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, bass stocks have fallen by 35% in the last five years. In our area in particular, there has been a significant amount of pair trawling on a seasonal basis. Scottish pair trawlers sometimes come down to the channel to take their slice, but no pair trawlers from our own coasts are involved, and although we see a great many bass longliners, they are very selective in their fishing methods and their impact is therefore relatively small. Fixed-gear gill netting takes place inshore, and I think it important to set an inshore net size that will prevent the catching of juvenile fish. The minimum landing size for mullet, for example, is 20 cm, but they do not spawn until they are 48 cm.
	Our local branch of the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority has engaged with the industry in trying to find a solution, but the IFCA tells me that the Government must become involved if that is to happen. I recently received a letter from its chief officer and head of service, Edwin Derriman, in which he wrote:
	“I am aware that Defra is considering the ICES report”
	—that is, the report from the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea to which I referred earlier—
	“so I have to assume the UK Government will comment in due course. The Government and the EU are the proper authorities for considering that report, as it is for that audience that the ICES reports are written and any concentrated action to protect the species has to come from”
	the Government and the European Union. Mr Derriman went on to say
	“the Government do not necessarily agree with Cornwall IFCA’s view that a general increase in MLS”
	—minimum landing size—
	“would or could be beneficial for all stakeholders.”
	I hope that the Minister will inform us of the Government’s latest thinking on that issue.
	In another letter, Eddie Derriman wrote:
	“an unexpected challenge has come about through the forthcoming EU 'discard ban'.”
	It is true that many people did not anticipate that challenge. There has been a campaign for a discard ban, and I have certainly joined the chorus, although I have consistently pointed out that if a logical solution is to be found, it will be important to find a way of distinguishing between what is intended and what is unintended in relation to catch quotas.

Angus MacNeil: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew George: Let me first say something about the impact of the discard ban on minimum landing sizes generally, and on those relating to bass in particular.
	Eddie Derriman wrote:
	“There is a lot of discussion on the principle that if discards are banned, then MLS sizes may be defunct. We cannot second guess the likely outcome to all the discussions, but I would hope that common sense prevails and that 'robust' fish species could be put back in the water it there is a good or reasonable chance of them surviving.”
	While we agree in principle that it is unacceptable for perfectly good and edible dead fish to be thrown back into the water and wasted—a rather offensive image which has, I think, driven the argument for a discard ban—I think that we should think about the potential unintended consequences, one of which is the increased difficulty of implementing a minimum landing size. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that as well.

Angus MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman said that we needed to establish whether the fishing of endangered stock was targeted or non-targeted. I know that during the autumn at least one boat contained 400 boxes, and I am sure that all the other boats have done the same. That should serve as a guide to civil servants and scientists who are formulating some sort of policy.
	The one thing that fishermen do not want to do is go on a fishing trip and load their boats with fish that have zero value. They do not want to steam out, fill their boxes with fish that they did not intend to catch, do not want and cannot sell, and then have to steam back and land them on a pier. That is the worst of all worlds for a fisherman.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We need short interventions. There is a danger of Members’ trying to make speeches by means of interventions, which worries me. Six more Back Benchers and two Front Benchers have yet to speak. I do not want to have to impose a time limit, but it is looking likely.

Andrew George: I accept your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker. We could, of course, extend the debate to the relative merits of quota and area management, but I will simply say that, in my view, area and seasonal management and a more effective use of closed areas are a better way of controlling and protecting fish stocks than quotas.
	Let me end by making a couple of brief points. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that in Cornwall we have drawn attention to the potential risks to our crab fishery, particularly in the over-15-metre sector. One of
	the problems of the way in which the industry is managed is that requests for significant cuts in the catch are often given at very short notice. Much more planning is needed if we are to avoid shocks of that kind.
	I also want to raise the issue of the six and 12-mile limits. I know that my hon. Friend has a reputation, indeed a pedigree, for being strongly anti-European, and I hope that I can draw something out of his anti-European-ness. I am talking about simply batting for Britain. Let us all join forces, and agree that whether we are engaging with Europe positively and constructively or negatively, what we want is the best deal for Britain. It is clear that most of the foreign boats that are taking advantage of access within the 12-mile zone and up to the six-mile zone are new, and were not around at the time of their historic entitlement. I urge my hon. Friend to scrutinise the impact that they are having very close to our coasts. I also ask him to think about the point that we have reached in the negotiations on the setting of marine conservation zones, which lie both within and outside the six to 12-mile zone. We need to ensure that we apply the same rules to both foreign and British vessels.

Eilidh Whiteford: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing the debate and welcoming the new Minister to his first annual fisheries debate?
	This is an appropriate day to remember those who have lost their lives or been injured at sea. We have to remember that fishing remains an inherently dangerous occupation, and those who take on the risks of harvesting our seas deserve our utmost respect. Today’s debate is also an opportunity to express our gratitude to those who serve in the Royal National Mission to Deep Sea Fishermen. The mission does a tremendous amount of good in our fishing communities, and from speaking recently to the superintendents in Fraserburgh and Peterhead, it is clear that the demands on their welfare provisions are intensifying in these austere times.
	We should also pay tribute to our coastguards and the volunteers of the RNLI lifeboats. Earlier this year I joined the crew of the Fraserburgh lifeboat aboard the “Willie and May Gall” for one of its regular training sessions. Luckily for me, it was an usually calm evening off Kinnaird head, but it gave me a fantastic insight into the commitment and courage of the men and women who train all year round so that they are prepared for emergencies when they arise. I want to thank publicly Victor Sutherland and his crew for that opportunity, but above all for the service they give—and, indeed, the service the lifeboat crews in Peterhead, Fraserburgh and Macduff give to the communities I represent and the service provided by all those RNLI volunteers around our coast who give their time and risk their own lives to save others.
	This has been a difficult year for the fishing industry in Scotland, particularly in my part of the world. Last December, shortly after our last fisheries debate, the east coast was hit by a massive storm which combined
	with high seasonal tides and the direction of the wind to cause extensive damage to our ports and sea defences. Our largest ports at Peterhead and Fraserburgh sustained considerable structural damage, as did many of our smaller harbours. One factory in Peterhead was completely destroyed. I saw buildings near the shore in Fraserburgh that had been moved off their foundations. People living near the shore in Peterhead had to be evacuated from homes that had lost their doors and windows, and further damage to processing factories was only averted by swift action to repair sea defences in the immediate aftermath of the storm. It was a sobering reminder of the power of the elements, but its aftermath has also been a testament to the resilience of our fishing communities.
	Things are not yet back to normal by any means, but the repairs are well under way, with ports seizing the opportunity not just to repair, but to improve their sea defences and invest in new developments. The further round of emergency grants announced by the Scottish Government this week and European fisheries funding is supporting 45 projects around the Scottish coast and will enable over £11 million of investment in our fishing communities. Businesses in my own constituency have been major beneficiaries, most notably Peterhead port authority.
	Yet Scotland only gets £46 million of the UK’s EFF allocation, which fails to reflect the size of our fishing industry and compares very poorly with the levels of funding available to other fishing nations such as Lithuania, and also Denmark which has £100 million a year in EFF funding although it has a population of very similar size to ours. Overall, Scotland accounts for 7% of the EU’s wild fish catches and 12% of EU aquaculture, yet we get only 1.1% of fisheries funding. By any measure, our fisheries are being short-changed, and disasters like the one last year expose the vulnerability that this creates.
	However, the challenges we have faced this year have not just been weather-related. This has also been a particularly difficult year for our nephrops fishermen, given the scarcity of prawns during the first half of the year. That has caused real hardship in parts of the fleet, including in my constituency, and great anxiety because we do not know for sure what caused the problem, as it is a well-managed, sustainably harvested stock. The prawn catches have bounced back more recently, and those most adversely affected have access to hardship funds, but it does bring home the need for flexibility in the common fisheries policy so that parts of the industry are not left high and dry in such situations.
	The other challenge, of course, is that the mackerel dispute with Iceland and the Faroes rolls on. The Minister should know that I deeved his predecessor regularly on this issue over the last three years. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North suggested, the impasse has big implications not only for our pelagic sector, but for the white fish fleet and our fish processors. It is also a factor in the hold-up of the talks between the EU and Norway, which should have been taking place this month, but have now been put back until the new year. I am told there is some new momentum towards reaching a deal on mackerel. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to update the House on that, and can I urge him not to accept a deal at any price, and to defend our industry?
	Mackerel is our most valuable stock, and we must protect access to EU waters and ensure there is equity between EU member states and Norway.
	I acknowledge the work that has been done to reform the CFP. Finally, at long last, we have a deal. To my mind, the move towards regionalisation, and the moves to maximum sustainable yield, will pay dividends in the medium to longer term and set the policy on a very different course. This represents progress that is long overdue.
	The new landing obligation, or discard ban, has dominated the debate and has been widely hailed as the centrepiece of the reformed CFP. I think everyone without exception wants to see discarding come to an end. Those of us who have campaigned against discards know that it has, without a doubt, been the worst symptom of the structural problems within the CFP. I do not want to rain on anyone’s parade, but we have already heard about some of the contradictions that will be created by that discards ban, and the House needs to acknowledge that we still have some way to go to find a way to make that ban workable in practice.
	There is inevitably by-catch in a mixed fishery, and our fishermen are going to need quota to be able to land it. The Scottish Government ran a trial earlier this year with a pair team of vessels on a “land all you catch” basis, with a view to informing the implementation of the discard ban. The trial was supposed to run until December, but it ended in August because the vessels ran out of quota for hake, which is currently abundant in our waters. This problem of “choke species” is not going to go away, and we need to find ways to deal with it. In this case the choke species was hake, but in other waters it will be other species, and therefore in future our fishermen are going to need quota for non-target species and unwanted catches. There are massive financial implications for vessels that need to lease in quota for by-catches, and if we are serious about stopping discards, then we need to secure the extra quota to allow it to happen. I would be interested to know what the Minister thinks about the prospects of the Commission providing fishermen with the additional quota to cover the fish they are currently forced to discard so that we do not end up in the situation outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), where they have got fish on board that they cannot land and cannot discard. Are they going to eat it on board? It is hard to know what fishermen are supposed to do and how they are going to stay within the law.
	I know that the talks that start next week will only be addressing stocks that are wholly within EU waters, and the important discussions with Norway on key shared North sea stocks like cod, haddock, whiting and saithe will not be happening until we are into the new year. However, once again the big issue will be cod quotas and the flaws in the cod recovery plan. We know that cod stocks are moving in the right direction, and in fact cod mortality is now at its lowest level since 1963, when assessments started. Fishermen and scientists alike are telling us that cod is more abundant than it has been for 50 years. However, the CRP threatens to derail the progress made in recent years. Last year, common sense prevailed and there was recognition that rigid adherence to the plan would be counter-productive. The same applies this year. If the proposed 9% quota cut goes ahead, it will inevitably lead to an increase in discards,
	which is exactly what we are trying to prevent. In my view, we need to continue following the science—in this I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh)—and the science indicates that a small increase in the allowable catch for North sea cod will enable the stock to keep growing and keep our long-term outcome of a sustainable fishery on track. I hope the Minister will promote that objective in the forthcoming talks, and I seek his assurance on that today.
	I also seek a commitment from the Minister that he will not let days at sea be reduced any further, and that he will support an effort to freeze this at 2012-13 levels. Automatic reductions in days at sea will not give the fleet enough time to catch its quota, and that can only increase risk to our fishermen.
	A great deal rides on the forthcoming negotiations. As everyone else looks forward to winding down for Christmas, December is a particularly tense and anxious time of year for fishing communities and everyone who works in the fishing industry. I wish the Minister well for the negotiations, and urge him to defend robustly the interests of our fishing and processing industries at these talks.

Sheryll Murray: I apologise for the fact that I shall not be present for the wind-ups owing to commitments relating to other Government business. It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), and I should like to thank fellow members of the all-party parliamentary fisheries group for joining me and helping to secure today’s debate through the Backbench Business Committee. I should like to welcome my Cornish neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), to his first annual fisheries debate as the Minister responsible for this industry, which is very close to my heart, as the House knows. I pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) and thank him on behalf of the industry for representing it so well over recent years as a shadow Minister and a Minister.
	As is traditional, I should like to thank members of all the seafarers’ charities who provide so much support for our fishermen. In particular, I should like to mention the Fishermen’s Mission and to single out one very special person who has volunteered for the charity over the past few years. He is Ian Murray, the brother of my late husband. I should also like to offer my condolences to all the bereaved families of fishermen and to make a special mention of the Fishwives Choir, which consists of fishermen’s widows who came together to record the song “When the boat comes in/Eternal father”. Hon. Members can download the song from the Fishermen’s Mission website; it would make an excellent Christmas present.
	After years of being virtually ignored by the last Government, the fishing industry now has a Government who represent its interests. I want to look at a couple of the things that were achieved during the common fisheries policy negotiations. The discard ban has been a long time coming. I remember protesting in Plymouth city centre many years ago, along with fishermen who were
	discarding their over-quota plaice in the middle of the road to demonstrate that wasteful practice to the public. The Minister must ensure that this move is accompanied not only by the available quota, which many Members have called for, but by all the available technical measures to allow the small fish to escape before capture. Neil and other Looe fishermen inserted square mesh panels in their trawls many years ago to try to ensure that only marketable-sized fish reached their decks. Looe was a leading port in that initiative.
	The Minister must also ensure that in mixed fisheries, particularly in Cornwall, the correct quota balance is available to allow fishermen to earn a consistent living. Many fishermen only have small boats, and do not have the luxury of large modern vessels like the Lunar Bow. I joined the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan and many others on a visit to that ship a couple of years ago. It can earn a living by going to sea for just six to eight weeks a year. Most British fishermen do not have that luxury.
	I want to turn now to decentralised decision making, and allowing member states to agree locally the measures appropriate to their fisheries. That is a first-class proposal. As Bertie Armstrong of the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation mentioned in his briefing, this has not been put in place before because of a systemic defect—namely, the fact that “exclusive competence” for preservation of marine biological resource rests with the EU. Without a treaty change, it is not possible to devolve that responsibility, which we all believe involves control.
	Finally, I would like to move on to the 6 to 12-mile limit derogation. My fellow Cornish coalition partner, my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George), has mentioned the fact that the derogation was due to end on 1 January 2013. I raised this matter last year, and I am raising it again today. This matter is still up for negotiation as a result of the extension put in place by the European Commission. Had there been no extension, there could have been a repetition of the Kent Kirk incident.
	Let me explain to hon. Members what that incident involved. Kent Kirk is currently a Danish Member of the European Parliament. Before that, when he was the Danish fisheries Minister, he shot his nets within the British 12-mile limit during the 13 days when that limit was not in place, between 1 January 1983 and the date later in January when the agreement came into force. He went to the European Court of Justice because the British authorities excluded him from those waters, and the Court ruled that the waters within our 12-mile limit were in fact EU waters.
	I call on our Minister—as I did last year—to negotiate the 6 to 12-mile limits in the spirit of the original London convention agreement of 1969. According to the spirit of the agreement, access to the 12-mile limit for other nationals with historical rights was always intended to be temporary. Forty years on, we need to see an end to other nations’ access, because those vessels are probably no longer fishing. That 6 to 12-mile limit should now be exclusively for British fishermen.
	Finally, I would like to put it on record that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister enters into the next renegotiation of powers to be returned to the sovereignty of this House, the restoration of national
	control over our 200-mile/median line limit, as described in the Fishery Limits Act 1976, should be at the top of his list. I am pleased that, over the years, this proposal has also had the support of Labour Members. Although he is not present today, I would like to applaud the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell), who has been campaigning for that change for longer than I have—and I have been doing so for almost 30 years.
	I would like to remind my hon. Friend the Minister that fishermen all over the country, especially in Cornwall and Devon, have been listening to the words of our coalition colleagues who have tried to dress up regionalisation as national control for far too long. That argument simply does not wash any longer. Nothing short of the Conservative manifesto commitment of 2005 is acceptable to me or to the industry that I love so much. It is time for action. In the short term, we need exclusivity for British fishermen over our territorial waters out to 12 miles. In the long term, we need national control over our 200-mile/median line limit.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, I am going to have to put an eight-minute limit on speeches. I do not want to have to bring it down further, but a lot of the time has been taken by others.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall not speak for too long, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). She has lived her life at the heart of the fishing industry, and it is obvious from what she has just been saying, with which I strongly agree, that her heart is still with the industry.
	Hon. Members will appreciate that Luton North is not a maritime constituency, and I have to say that the Luton North fishing fleet is not large. Nevertheless, I have spoken many times on fishing policy, and I have strong views on it that I think some Members share. The CFP was a terrible mistake, and it has been a disaster for Britain and for fishing waters around the coasts of the European Union. The reforms come and go, and we have seen some improvement: the movement towards regionalisation is a tacit acceptance that we have to have some local control. The obvious local control should be national local control, which, in effect, means the abolition of the CFP, in time. I have suggested that we ought to give notice—perhaps five years’ notice—that we will withdraw unilaterally from the CFP if we cannot get agreement within the European Union. That should be one of the prime negotiating planks when the Prime Minister is renegotiating our relationship with the EU. The CFP would be my No. 1 policy to dispose of.
	Fish stocks have suffered terribly as a result of overfishing, and that has occurred because all member states can plunder other nations’ waters without having any responsibility for what happens. We know that at least one nation has indulged in “black fish” landing in considerable quantities, and if it cannot be trusted to fish in our waters, perhaps it should be restricted to fishing in its own waters, and restoring the 200-mile limit or 50:50 limit would be the sensible way forward.
	Britain has large traditional waters; it is one of the largest maritime nations in the European Union in terms of its seas. It is completely daft and unacceptable that a number of land-locked nations in the EU can vote on the common fisheries policy. Many of them will vote slavishly for what the Commission suggests, because that is what they habitually do, so the Commission can always rely on a block vote of land-locked nations and nations that have no interest in fishing to act against what our interests might be.
	The first-class example of a nation that manages its fish stocks extremely well is Norway, because it is not a member of the common fisheries policy—it is outside the European Union. Norway monitors every boat and every catch within it waters. I have just seen a quote today from an article in The Guardian of 14 February in which Fiona Harvey talks about a Norwegian trawler skipper, Egil Skarbøvik. She quotes him as saying:
	“In Norway we have been able to build up the strongest cod and haddock stock in the Barents Sea ever, thanks to strong regulations including closed areas, sorting grids and a strict coastguard.”
	If every nation did that, we would not have a problem with overfishing or with fish stocks diminishing, and we would not need such nonsense as discards, because we would all be managing our fish stocks and our fishing, and we would all benefit.
	If all foreign vessels were excluded from British waters, I feel confident that there would be plenty of fish for British fisherman—there would not be a problem. With the existing fishing industry continuing to fish in our waters, we would see the fish stocks recover, because other nations’ fishermen would be outside. Over time, if it became possible, we could do what Norway does, which is to license individual fishing boats from other nations to fish in its waters. We have seen the boundaries of the CFP being pushed by Sweden and Denmark, and we ought to move in that direction, too. They are inching closer and closer to having real control of their own fishing waters, and I say hooray for them. I think we should do the same. They are smaller nations with smaller fishing grounds—nothing like ours—but we would benefit enormously by adopting such an approach. That is not just a nationalist policy; it is about saving fish stocks for everyone. If we had good fish stocks, we would be able to eat fish comfortably, without having to worry about the long-term future viability of our fishing grounds.
	I have made my point many times, and I shall no doubt make it again until I win the argument. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who negotiated quite hard on our behalf and did a good job, and I have complimented him at a personal level, too. However, we still have a long way to go. We have regional areas, but a region that covers Britain and Spain is nonsense. Having Spain as one region and the UK as another would make more sense. That would be a step towards the abolition of the CFP and the restoration of the management of fishing to member states, which is the sensible way ahead.

Peter Aldous: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on securing this debate and welcome the new Minister to
	the Front Bench. I also pay tribute to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon).
	In many respects the outlook for the fishing industry in the United Kingdom is better than it has been for many years. The reforms of the CFP mean that a regime that made it difficult for fishermen to run their businesses successfully, led to the overfishing of stocks and devastated the marine environment is, at last, being cast into the dustbin of history. It will be replaced, I hope, with a more sustainable system, where decisions are taken on a regional basis, rather than in Brussels. There are hurdles to overcome, although fishing stocks are probably in a better place than they have been for some time, with cod mortality in the North sea decreasing, biomass slowly increasing and North sea plaice in a better place than it was 10 years ago. Nevertheless, significant challenges lie ahead. The industry in Lowestoft, in my constituency, is a pale shadow of its former self and I fear that the halcyon days will never return.
	There are three aspects of CFP reform: a move towards decentralised decision making, which I welcome; the legally binding commitment to fish sustainably, which, again, is very welcome; and the outlawing of discarding. Although that is to be welcomed, the implementation of the ban presents many challenges. This transition will not be straightforward, and the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has identified four hurdles, which the hon. Member for Aberdeen North has outlined. I would welcome the Minister’s response on those four issues when he sums up.
	If there is to be a satisfactory transition to zero discards, fisheries science will play a vital role, so I urge the Government against any cuts to this part of the DEFRA budget. The Fisheries Science Partnership, established in 2003—which includes DEFRA, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, which is based in my constituency in Lowestoft, and the NFFO—has played an important role in bringing a scientific perspective to decision making, and has brought industry and scientists closer together. It is important that we build on that partnership, as that will help the move towards zero discards by 2019.
	It is also necessary to build on the catch quota management trials that have taken place to improve nets and gears, thereby helping to avoid unwanted catches. The feedback from the Project 50% trial, on which CEFAS and the Brixham trawl fleet have worked together, is encouraging; overall discards were reduced by 52%, and the most successful boat achieved a 70% reduction. There is also a need to convince consumers to eat less popular types of fish, which would otherwise be thrown away. We need to build on such initiatives as Fishing for the Markets, which seeks to convince consumers that the less popular fish are both edible and tasty. Such a move in consumer demand will not only ensure that the less popular fish are not simply discarded on land, rather than at sea, but will take pressure off more popular fish, such as tuna, prawn, cod and haddock.
	The small Lowestoft fleet that exists today is predominantly an under-10-metre one, and the challenges that the inshore fleet has faced in recent years are well documented. These boats comprise 70% of the UK fleet and employ 65% of the fleet’s total work force, yet currently receive only 4% of the total quota available
	to the UK. It is important that that inequity be addressed. Article 17 in the finalised text of the CFP reform document provides the framework within which justice can be achieved for the under-10-metre fleet. It is important that the Government have its provisions in mind at all times as they set about implementing the reforms. The importance of a strong under-10-metre fleet should not be underestimated. These boats have the least economic impact on the marine environment, and they maximise the social and economic returns to many coastal communities facing significant challenges, such as Lowestoft.
	It is important to recognise that the quota problems for the under-10-metre fleet are not localised to the south-east, but are more widespread around the UK coast. I acknowledge the work being done by the NFFO in identifying and dealing with pinch points—the localised problems the fleet faces—but to have a long-term future the under-10-metre fleet cannot rely on handouts from producer organisations, be they annual swaps, gifts or transfers; it is important that it has its own quota. There is a concern that those under-10s whose business model is reliant on access to leased quotas from producer organisations could experience significant difficulties if the cost of quota escalates following the introduction of the discard ban.
	Back in July, Mr Justice Cranston handed down one of the most important judgments in recent years regarding the creation of proprietary rights from state licences. In brief, that was a judicial review case brought by the producer organisations against the Secretary of State over the unused allocation of unused fishing quota from the larger to the smaller operators. The larger operators sought to quash the Secretary of State’s decision on three grounds, and the claim was dismissed on all three.
	In July, I secured an Adjournment debate to consider the implications of the case. The Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, responded. The judgment provides the Government with an opportunity to secure a more equitable distribution of quota for the under-10s, although I am aware that some experts have described the judgment as contradictory. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the action the Government are taking as a result of the judgment.
	Also back in the summer, DEFRA provided an assurance that the publicly accessible register of quota allocations and transactions would be published by the end of 2013. I would welcome an update on when the register will be published. Hopefully, it will dispel a number of urban myths as to who actually holds quota.
	In future, quota should be held only by active fishermen and not by those who have sold their boats and no longer have any connection with fishing. I would be interested to hear whether the Government share that view. It is the only way we can ensure that in ports such as Lowestoft, the industry will have a future. The glory days will not return, but there is an opportunity to have a financially viable inshore fleet that will help sustain the allied and processing industries, and that can play an important supporting role in the renaissance of coastal Britain.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) on setting the scene for this important debate. One thinks of the film “Groundhog Day”, as the debate happens every year and we always seem to come back to it. However, it does not make the debate any less important, as we can see from the Members who are here to make a contribution.
	As I have said many times before in this Chamber, fishing is the lifeblood of the village of Portavogie in my constituency, which has both primary and secondary fishing jobs. It has been said in this debate that Northern Ireland has 700 fishing jobs, but the offshore jobs—those involved in further processing—double that figure. It is clear, therefore, how important fishing is to my constituency and to the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie).
	Just last week, I, along with Diane Dodds MEP and Alan McCulla of the Anglo-North Irish Fish Producers Organisation, had the opportunity to meet the Minister and to put forward a case for Northern Ireland to set the scene early on. I pay tribute to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is not in his place, because he took the time to come to the Chamber for the start of the debate. We all recognise his interest and importance in this regard. Things have changed. The responsibility now falls on the shoulders of a new Minister, and I look forward to supporting him as he does his job. Let us make no mistake; there will be a big fight in Europe over this issue.
	Members have referred to the number of deaths at sea. Every time I watch the film “Deadliest Catch”, I think of the fishermen from Portavogie who have such experiences every week. The other night, “Perfect Storm” was on TV. We all know that film, but for some of the families in Portavogie, they live that life. We have a memorial in the harbour to those who died doing their job.
	I want to focus my remarks on Northern Ireland and the issues of nephrops and prawns. The scientific advice for nephrops was published on 31 October, but we have no indication of what is happening in relation to it. The nephrops industry is critical to the fishing sector in Northern Ireland. If area 7 is cancelled, nephrops will again be our No. 1 priority. I urge the Minister, as we did last week, to underline that important issue. The fishing stock in Northern Ireland could have 100 vessels specifically targeting that species.
	In recent years, the UK and Ireland have successfully made the case that the total allowable catches must be uplifted above the “sum of the science” to account for consistent undershoots in the TAC caused by some member states not taking up their allocation of nephrops. I find those undershoots both worrying and annoying; they cause great concern to me and to the industry. Combined with the less favourable scientific advice, they will make achieving a roll-over in the TAC very challenging this year. It must be stressed that the catch landed is important for the fishermen of Northern Ireland and for the shore-based industry. Again, let us make no mistake: the issue is critical for the Northern Ireland fishing sector. Nephrops is Northern Ireland’s No.1 priority, and giving that stock such priority can be easily explained. It is practically the only major stock
	we have left. The fact remains that fisheries in the Irish sea have been managed into practically depending on this single species.
	Europe, through its legislation, bureaucracy and strategies, has pushed the fishing industry towards the one sector of prawns. At a recent North-Western Waters Regional Advisory Council meeting in Paris, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas agreed that stock was being managed within the maximum sustainable yield targets, which is good news.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) outlined the issue of Irish sea cod. The situation is similar for us in Northern Ireland. Our one remaining full-time whitefish trawler in the fleet mainly targets haddock, but a recovery plan is in place. The Northern Ireland fisheries division, through the Department for Agriculture and Rural Development, permitted a limited sentinel fishery for cod from 2 to 24 September. It observed the quantity of cod in the sea, and it showed that cod numbers and size of cod are increasing, which is good news.
	I am concerned that the European Commission has proposed a cut in the TAC of 20%, in line with the cod recovery plan. It is clear that we must argue for a simple roll-over in the TAC, but the Fisheries Minister is aware that that is a difficult argument to win, and a potential compromise would be to suggest a by-catch only fishery in 2014 if the Commission would agree to the TAC remaining unchanged. A reduced TAC combined with improved gear selectivity and the forthcoming discard ban will make it all the harder to determine what is happening with Irish sea cod. It should also be noted that any reduction in the TAC will stop the sentinel fishery, which is important and has been running for the past two years.
	There are some good points to make about fisheries, which is good because the news is so bleak at this time of the year. The size of haddock and plaice has increased over the past year. The EC has also proposed a 5% increase in herring, which is good news. The industry is on track to secure the Marine Stewardship Council certification, which has been running over the past few years, and that will be a first for an Irish sea fish species.
	I am really concerned that the number of days at sea will be reduced if cod stocks fail to recover. Our fishermen will have fewer days at sea, which is incredible and hard to understand.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if there is such a reduction, it would make it very difficult for many boats to have a sustainable future?

Jim Shannon: That is a valuable intervention, which outlines my case very clearly. If there is a reduction, the viability of many boats will come into question. Again, it will be yet another nudge in the direction of not fishing any more.
	Other Members have mentioned mackerel, but I am concerned that Iceland and the Faroe Islands might have 12% of the total allowable catch, which is what the EU is moving towards. Thankfully, that has been blocked so far by Norway. It reminds me of a saying that we have in my country—that is, “No surrender.” Norway said “No surrender” to the Faroes and to Iceland.
	When quota is allocated, it is ridiculous to allocate a percentage when the stock reduces in size. We want to protect the UK allocation, as other hon. Members have said.
	I am conscious of regionalisation. Others have mentioned it, but I want to see regionalisation that means that Northern Ireland has some control over the fisheries in the Irish sea. Other regions would like to see that, too. Northern Ireland secured an acceptable amount of money from the European fisheries fund budget and I believe that it can do likewise through the European maritime and fisheries fund.
	I urge the Minister, when he goes to Brussels, to ensure that the one thing he keeps in his mind is the fishermen. They want the fish, they want to sustain their jobs and they want to sustain their families. I am aware that I have gone into some detail, but at the same time I tell the Minister that I have every confidence that he goes into battle well armed with knowledge and firm about what he wants to achieve. I ask the House to give him the support he needs to do the job we know he can do well. We wish him well in the next week or two as he fights those battles for Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
	I am proud to represent a fishing constituency where vessels operate all along the coastline from Bantham round to Torbay. The value of the catch to Brixham cannot be overestimated. It is the highest-value catch in England in monetary terms and is worth £27 million. The fantastic new Brixham market has a turnover this year of £23 million, which has sadly reduced from £25 million in the previous year. I hope that the Minister will accept an invitation to visit Brixham and many of the other ports along my constituency’s coastline. He would be most welcome.
	We have 25 beam trawlers, 40 day boats and a growing leisure fleet contributing to our tourism sector and 375 people are employed locally as a direct result of the fishing industry in Brixham. That translates to 1,200 wider jobs in our local economy. No one can be in any doubt if they have been on board a commercial fishing vessel that fishing is the most dangerous of occupations in Britain. Those people work courageously and very hard in terrible conditions to put food on our plates.
	Since the last debate, Torbay has been mourning the loss of Andrew Westaway. I pay tribute to all those who have given their lives at sea to put food our plates and, like many other Members, pay tribute to our coastguard. This year in particular, I am thinking of our maritime rescue co-ordination centre in Brixham, which is sadly due for closure. I also pay tribute to the RNLI, to rescue boats such as Hope Cove, to those in the coast watch and to the Fishermen’s Mission, which does such an extraordinary job providing support to families who have lost loved ones and in supporting fishermen who work in or who have retired from the industry. In particular, I am thinking of the contribution of John Anderson in Brixham.
	Our fishermen are making great efforts to reduce the environmental impact of what they do. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous)
	for pointing out the work that has been done in Brixham, particularly with Project 50%. I pay tribute to those who have contributed to that. In particular, I am thinking of the extraordinary work of net designers and of those fishermen who have carried out the trials on beam trawlers. They have done extraordinary work and are now extending the use of rollerball technology to reduce the impact of by-catch and the environmental impact on the sea bed.
	Our fishermen are under extraordinary pressure. In 2011, 22% of our fishermen’s turnover went on fuel costs. That increased to 27% in 2012. Alongside that, they are under huge pressure from the impact of changes to quota. As the Minister goes into the negotiations—I wish him well—may I ask him to consider the impact of the 75% reduction in the haddock quota? Can he confirm what I am hearing from my local fishermen, which, I gather, is also evidenced on the ICES website—that is, that there has been a significant increase in haddock stocks that is not yet recognised? Although fishermen in my constituency are taking part in the i-logs and completing what they catch while they are on board, they tell me that there is a significant delay in that information being recorded by the Marine Management Organisation. The trouble is that, because it is a mixed fishery, fishermen in my constituency cannot stop catching haddock. As the discard ban is not coming in this year, they will be forced to discard healthy fish for the whole of this year and into the next. I urge the Minister to consider the evidence that the biomass for haddock has never been higher since we started recording it and to argue that we should roll over the existing TAC.
	Western channel Dover sole is iconic to Brixham and we must consider the impact on fishermen of a 7% reduction in that catch and a 17% reduction in channel plaice. As the Minister goes into the negotiations, I ask him to consider the most recent evidence on biomass and argue for a roll-over of existing quotas rather than accept a reduction.
	The combined efforts with the Brixham fleet have been effective in reversing the decline, but I want to move on now to what we can do to improve the science of recording catches and, in particular, the use of the EFF. Will the Minister confirm that the EFF fund will be extended into next year and will not now finish in December? When he looks at the EFF, I ask him to recognise that it operates between England and Scotland with the MMO. I have heard that although in Scotland projects can start pending a decision, in England that is not the case. That has had a considerable impact, meaning that the EFF has not been fully spent. Will the Minister confirm how much underspend there has been and what he intends to do to make the EFF easier to access? In particular, what will he do to put more of what the EFF does into supporting the science so that it can be kept up to date when future decisions are being made?
	I would also support the use of the EFF for safety equipment, where it has been very valuable. The installation of tipping bars and conveyors on our scalloping fleet has had a significant impact on safety, but there is far more we could do to use the EFF more effectively to support businesses onshore as well as using it on board our vessels and to support sciences.
	My final point is about a specific issue for the crabbing fleet. Five crabbing vessels operate in my constituency and they support 30 families. The crabbing fleet is under significant pressures from the effort restrictions and there are historic problems, too. The Minister will know that the French have 2 million kilowatt days whereas the UK has only 545. There is now an increasing threat that that will have to be shared with those who have latent licences. I feel that it is not reasonable to expect the fishermen to negotiate complex swaps with the French. I am grateful that the MMO took that on at the eleventh hour on this occasion, but will the Minister consider specifically whether small groups of families can negotiate such complex agreements? I feel that that is an important role that the MMO should be taking on on their behalf.
	As the Minister goes into the negotiations, I hope that he will consider the enormous economic importance of this export industry and do everything he can to support our fishermen as we go forward. I hope that he will come down to visit them in my constituency, where he will have a very warm welcome.

Barry Gardiner: I am delighted to respond to the many excellent speeches that have been made by Members across the Chamber. I, too, would like to begin by paying my respects to all those who have lost their lives over the past year in our fishing communities and in the wider service given on the seas, in the coastguards, other coastal agencies and the maritime fleet. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran), who introduced the debate so well, and to the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who served as an excellent Fisheries Minister over the past few years and negotiated many important developments in European fisheries during his tenure.
	The EU is the world’s largest maritime territory, and marine resource makes a significant contribution to our prosperity and social well-being. The marine environment must therefore be protected to ensure that it is healthy, productive and safeguarded for the use of future generations. We are stewards of a renewable resource, rather than miners of a finite one, and we would do well to remember that. Many of the threats to Europe’s marine resource require co-operation and collective action if they are to be tackled effectively.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke about the need for regional control to lead logically to national control, but unfortunately I do not share his view, because effective co-operation is needed if we are to manage the resource responsibly and through the ecosystem-based approach that the marine stewardship framework directive suggests. Our seas and oceans border many nations and unfortunately fish do not carry passports, so they must be managed on an ecosystem basis.
	The marine stewardship framework directive outlines a transparent legislative framework for that ecosystem-based approach. In essence, it states the need for each nation to develop, in co-operation with others, marine strategies to be implemented to protect and conserve the marine environment, to prevent its deterioration and, where practicable, to restore marine ecosystems in areas where they have been adversely affected. Those marine strategies
	must, in accordance with the directive, contain an initial assessment of the current environmental status of the member state’s marine waters. They must contain a determination of what good environmental status means for those waters.
	Many Members have referred to the fact that sound science is often lacking, that there are steps that we might like to take but we do not know whether we have the scientific basis upon which to proceed. That is why it is absolutely critical that those elements of the strategies that the framework directive calls for are implemented. Without that sound science base, it is extremely difficult to see how we can move forward.
	I want to talk about what has been referred to as the discard ban, which of course it is not yet coming in. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations—many Members have referred to its briefing document—has highlighted serious concerns about the ban. It mentions recent research published in green policy and fisheries research that shows that the ban, in isolation, will generate little economic incentive to operate more selectively. It has also been suggested that the additional quota provided to enable the landing of by-catch could be too large for certain modern vessels and too small for less technologically advanced vessels. Unfortunately, some people appear to place more emphasis on the need to enlarge quota to deal with the landing obligation and to focus on the measures designed to eliminate by-catch in the first place. We heard some good examples from the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) about selective gear and net mesh size, which can do just that. Also, ultimately, that could be done by trading quota.
	The NFFO has focused on the fish species that in some cases have shown significant recovery over the past few years—referred to as the “good news” by some Members. Hake, haddock and herring have all shown some recovery, which is testimony to the technological capability of the industry and its efforts to fish more sustainably when required to do so. I think that it is also a vindication of the role that the quota system has played. The fact that stocks are recovering should not be taken as an excuse to say that the quota system should now be disbanded; they are recovering precisely because the quota system has been effective.

Jim Shannon: Will the Minister give way?

Barry Gardiner: I will happily give way. I must counsel the hon. Gentleman that I am not the Minister, although I am grateful for the accolade.

Jim Shannon: We have great designs for the hon. Gentleman.
	Does the shadow Minister not share my concern, and that of many Members of the House, about the difference between the scientific evidence and the claims of those in the fishing industry who say that there are more fish in the sea?

Barry Gardiner: I absolutely share the hon. Gentlemen’s concern about the lack of scientific evidence. Indeed, I opened my remarks by saying that is one of the key problems. If we are going to base our policy on sound science, we need to establish what that science is. I refer him to his own remarks about Irish sea cod. He talked
	about the need simply to roll over the TAC in relation to Irish sea cod. However, the NFFO guidance on that states:
	“A decade of draconian measures which have cut TACs, restricted days-at-sea, imposed tightened landing controls, introduced more selective gear and decommissioned a significant part of the fleet and obliged most fishermen to divert to alternative fisheries, has failed to generate the kind of recovery of cod seen in the North and Celtic seas.”
	If it has failed to generate that recovery and the stocks are still in such a low state, it does not make sense to say, “Well, heck. Let’s just proceed anyway” and bust through any attempt to get the stocks back into a reasonable condition.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again—he is being very gracious. The facts are that the sentinel fishery is an experimental fishery for the past two years, and the indications show that last year cod numbers were back in the sea, and this year shows even more evidence of that. That is what the fishermen are seeing and that is what the scientific evidence now shows, but that is not in the report. I wish that it was, because the opinion would be completely different from what the hon. Gentleman has referred to. The report is not up to date.

Barry Gardiner: I would have to rely on the Mandy Rice-Davies defence—“They would say that, wouldn’t they?” The point is that anecdote is not the basis of sound policy. We have to establish the facts. I am as keen to establish them as the hon. Gentleman and, I am sure, the fishermen in his community. Once we have established the facts, we can proceed with certainty.

Angus MacNeil: When politicians talk about science, in reality, as we have just seen with mackerel, the science has followed what is happening. The ICES advice for the increase in TAC in 2014 is a 65% to 79% increase, which in effect is only a 3% increase in what was caught in 2013 owing to fishermen in other states having a certain view of what was happening in the sea. Another issue—this relates to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said—is that there are other areas where there is a cod recovery plan in operation but where there were no cod anyway. However, because of the catch compositions the cod recovery plan is leading to the dumping of haddock, and as haddock is being dumped and not landed, consumers will have to choose anther fish, and they will choose cod, so the plan will have the opposite effect to the one intended.

Barry Gardiner: It is important to remember that for every hour spent fishing nowadays—in boats bristling with the latest satellite technology to identify the movement of the stocks, with all the modern gear on board—fishers now land just 6% of what they did 120 years ago.
	Of course, fishermen always want to maximise their catch, and rightly so—they are business men—but we have to recognise that the loss of our fishing communities up and down the coastline of Britain has happened because of overfishing. There is no getting away from that fact. We have to put in place a regime that can restore biomass and maximum sustainable yield but also ensure that we get to the point where those communities have secure jobs and secure economic benefits because we have enough fish for everyone.

Kelvin Hopkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Barry Gardiner: Very briefly, because I do not want to deprive the Minister of time.

Kelvin Hopkins: My hon. Friend has made a very powerful point about the number of fish being caught. Surely excluding from our waters the vessels of other member states that overfish, which we cannot control, has to come first before we start to manage our own fishing industry.

Barry Gardiner: I am afraid that my hon. Friend was out of the Chamber when I responded to that point, which he made earlier. Perhaps if he wants to catch up with that in Hansard we will not delay the proceedings further.
	We must take a science-based approach to quota allocation and we must have a clear goal of delivering a diverse and abundant marine environment that can sustain stronger economic growth and deliver more jobs for Britain’s fishing community. It is essential that fishers are able to respond to the changes in the abundance of their quarry. The quota system can clearly create barriers to more sustainable, responsive fishing practices, but I am not persuaded that calls for an increase in total allowable catch and quota are based on adequate evidence or are compatible with the recovery of Britain’s fisheries and the long-term economic health of Britain’s fishing communities.
	The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) stated the need for a greater share of the quota for the under-10 metre fleet. He made that case absolutely superbly. Although I have screeds that I would wish to have said about it, he has made the case and I do not need to do so.
	The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) spoke of the science base. Everything comes back to that: we must follow the science. The difficulty is that often proceeding on the basis of anecdote and surmise is the only thing that we have. There are very few examples of scientific evidence being gathered both pre and post-fishing activity. A happy exception is found in the study, “Long-term changes in deep-water fish populations in the northeast Atlantic”—a paper published in the proceedings of the Royal Society in 2009.
	This week, unfortunately, the proposed European ban on deep-sea fishing, which aimed to phase out trawling below 600 metres, was defeated. Trawling below that level is recognised by scientists as being by far the most destructive fishing activity. In line with its work on a more sustainable EU common fisheries policy, this matter has been very much on the European Parliament’s agenda. The Minister may care to explain why his Conservative colleagues in the European Parliament joined forces with other groups to vote down the ban and also voted to delay progress on the draft legislation, meaning that better conservation measures for deep-sea species are unlikely to be taken forward until after the 2014 European elections.
	Deep-sea trawlers are catching top predators first and then moving down the food web. Taking away the top predator from an ecosystem risks a significant, possibly irrevocable, destabilisation because it removes species that play a regulatory role affecting the entire
	food web. The key target species in deep-sea fisheries include round-nosed grenadier, black scabbard and orange ruffy, but for these three, and up to perhaps another seven, target species for deep-sea trawlers, some 78 species are being caught as by-catch. These deep-sea species tend to be longer lived. The orange ruffy lives for up to 100 years and reaches maturity only at the age of 30. Catching these species can completely destabilise the ecosystem.
	The science shows that before commercial deep-sea trawling commenced, the abundance of fish per sq km was 25,000 fish, but afterwards it collapsed to 7,225 fish per sq km. Equally of concern is that the decline was not localised in the fished area of 52,000 sq km but extended to 142,000 sq km—an area two and three quarter times that of the area that had been fished by deep-sea trawling. This is a desperately serious problem.
	Finally, I want to talk about marine conservation zones, because they have been—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s “Finally” is a brief one, because he has already spoken for 16 minutes. We have another debate and we have not heard the Minister yet, so I do not want an extensive discussion of marine conservation zones.

Barry Gardiner: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In deference to your ruling, and because I too wish the Minister to have the opportunity to respond, I will conclude my remarks. I apologise for taking more time on interventions than perhaps I should have done.

George Eustice: I commend the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and others for bringing this issue to the House and the Backbench Business Committee for supporting it. It has been a very detailed first fisheries debate for me, and it has provided a welcome opportunity to cover a range of important matters.
	As the hon. Gentleman said, it is important that we take this opportunity to remember the four fishermen who have lost their lives in this past year in their line of work at sea and in the harbour. This is a stark reminder that fishing remains the most dangerous occupation in this country, as numerous Members have mentioned, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell). I was particularly struck by what my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said about Andrew Westaway in her constituency. We must remember the courage and sacrifice of individual fishermen, who put their lives in danger to bring food to our tables, and of their families who support them. I remind people of the plug given to the Fishwives choir by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). I know that the House will want to join me in remembering the bravery of our fishermen and the incredibly difficult and dangerous work that they do, and in sending our sincere condolences to all those families and friends who have suffered losses.
	Many important points have been raised, and I want to pick up as many of them as I can. First, I want to put on record the sheer importance of this industry to the
	UK. We have more than 6,400 vessels and nearly 12,500 fishermen, and we produce 627,000 tonnes of fish per year with a value of £770 million. This industry is incredibly important to the UK.
	The single biggest development this year has been what I regard as a quite radical reform of the common fisheries policy. I congratulate my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), on his tireless efforts on this front, especially on managing to reform the broken common fisheries policy—a measure that was voted through and agreed by the European Parliament on Tuesday. The reformed CFP, which includes three major UK priorities, has three key elements: first, an end to the wasteful practice of discarding; secondly, an end to the one-size-fits-all approach, with regional decision making; and finally, a commitment to fish at sustainable levels. I want to say a little about each of those important areas in turn.
	On discarding, it has been an absolute scandal that we have had these regulatory discards whereby perfectly healthy fish are thrown, usually once dead, back into the sea. A number of Members have raised concerns about the discard ban, but it is important to recognise that to make it work there will be new flexibilities in the quota system. There will be inter-year flexibility so that quota for a species can be moved from one year to the next, and there will be some limited interspecies flexibility so that if a fisherman finds he is catching far more haddock than he expected, he can offset some of that haddock against his cod quota. We also recognise that there is much we can do with improved net gear. Big progress has already been made on this, and organisations such as the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science have done a lot of work on it, but there is certainly further to go.
	I have always thought that regional decision making is important, because I am of the view that a small number of member states with a shared interest in a fishery and in seeing it fished sustainably are much more likely to come up with coherent management measures than any haggling among a group of 28 countries. The move to regional co-operation is, therefore, very important. It will make it easier to get agreement and we will end up with more coherent policy making.
	A number of Members have raised concerns about how that will work. The fact is that, technically, it will remain a European Union competence. We have seen it work. When I attended the Fisheries Council in October, a similar process took place for the Baltic sea whereby those countries with a direct interest in that water came up with an agreement; they got there in the end. I think that that combination—of individual member states deciding management measures among themselves and the Commission standing behind that process and providing the ultimate check to make sure that they are fishing sustainably—works.
	The third point—this is really important, as the former Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, made clear—is about the legally binding commitment to fish sustainably. This is the essential bit that makes everything else stand up. All these things together represent a radical change in the CFP. This means that we have flexibility to ensure that a discard ban works, a legally binding commitment to fish sustainably, and more local decision making. We have further to go and I am looking forward to the next one to two years, when we
	can really work on making sure that we implement the measures properly. This has been a very important step forward.

Anne McIntosh: What reassurance is the Minister able to give the House that the Commission accepts that this will now be—dare we say it—a shared competence?

George Eustice: It is important to recognise that the setting of the total allowable catch will remain a European competence, but the management measures will be decided by the member states. On the signing of those management measures, the Commission’s role will be to ensure that we are fishing sustainably. There is an issue—my hon. Friend highlighted this—that, legally, a competence can reside either directly with the Commission or directly with member states. A hybrid system is difficult, but I think our agreement enables us to do that. The Commission can use mechanisms to make agreements between member states legally binding.

Andrew George: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: I want to press on; otherwise we are going to get a bit tight on time and I want to deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible.
	The UK has been leading the way in Europe in trialling schemes that tackle discards through managing fisheries by what is caught, not what is landed. Catch quota schemes have been very effective in reducing discards, and following the success of those schemes I want to continue to help vessels with the transition to the landings obligation under the reformed CFP.
	With the aims of the reformed CFP in mind, we will enter the negotiations at the December Council next week, where fishing opportunities will be decided. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) highlighted, it tends to end up being a late night. In fact, when anybody who has experience of the December Council describes it to me, they do so with a bit of a grin. I am not quite sure what to expect, but I will get some sleep over the weekend.
	We aim to negotiate a fair and balanced package of fishing opportunities consistent with our high-level objectives, which are, first, following the best available scientific evidence; secondly, achieving maximum sustainable yield; and thirdly, minimising discards. A range of issues will be UK priorities in the negotiations.

Angus MacNeil: Will the Minister give way?

George Eustice: I am going to press on. The hon. Gentleman has intervened quite a lot and, given the steer given by Madam Deputy Speaker, I am conscious of the time.
	Our priorities will affect fishermen throughout the UK. They include—a number of Members have mentioned this—seeking a continuation of the freeze in the number of days at sea available for fishermen in the North sea, the Irish sea and west of Scotland, which was agreed last year. We also want to see a moderate increase in the North sea cod TAC, recognising the very welcome recovery of this important stock. We will also argue for an expansion of our catch quota schemes and for outcomes on monkfish, Celtic sea haddock and nephrops in the Irish sea.
	I met the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) last week and he has made a very strong case for nephrops, as has the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). I recognise that, because of the cold, late spring, it has been a very bad year for nephrops. The science is challenging and recommends a 24% reduction in the TAC. As a number of Members have pointed out, there has been a tradition in past years for the quota not to be fully fished, which I think gives us some scope to argue that we should not have that proposed reduction. We will do our absolute best for the fishermen in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes has said, a challenging recommendation has been made to cut the TAC for Celtic sea haddock by 75%. We will argue that, because the TAC reduction for other species in that mixed fishery, such as whiting, are not being reduced by anything like as much, we will need to moderate that proposed reduction; otherwise, discards will be increased, because they are in a mixed fishery. We believe there is some linkage and that needs to be recognised in the negotiations.

Angus MacNeil: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. No real answer has been given on the issue of spurdog discards; fishermen need guidance on what is expected. Another point is that we should recognise the importance of our foreign crew, particularly in my constituency where men come from the Philippines. They are welcomed and wanted. Will the Minister use his office to do what he can with the immigration department to make sure we can get such men in? They are a proud people.

George Eustice: On spurdogs and porbeagles, we recognise that there is a particular challenge whereby there is a zero TAC or a very low TAC. One thing we will argue is that that needs to be loosened. On landings obligations, we cannot have a situation whereby, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said, short of eating the catch on the boat, it would not be possible to do much with it. We believe that that needs to be looked at and we will do so.
	A number of Members mentioned the mackerel dispute. I am concerned about the continued lack of an agreement on the management of the north-east Atlantic mackerel stock. It is the UK’s most important single fishery. I continue to hope that we might be able to get an agreement to end this long-running dispute, but we have been clear—I set this out at the October Council—that it will not be a deal at any cost. We do not want new fishing access rights in our waters and we believe that Norway should do its share. Negotiations are ongoing and we hope there will be an outcome. With a 70% increase in the TAC, it is important that this is the best opportunity we will have to get a solution.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) mentioned the issue of the under-10 metre fleet. I can confirm that this is an important domestic priority for the Government. I have met members of the under-10 metre fleet, as well as the producer organisations, and we are keen to see a permanent realignment of the quota to help the fleet. I also recognise the uncertainty they face with month-to-month access to quota. There
	have been some novel schemes whereby they have been able to pull together their resources in, for instance, Ramsgate and have quota allocated over a longer time frame. We are keen to make progress on that.
	The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) mentioned monitoring under the marine strategy framework directive whereby we can get good environmental status. I can confirm that we will announce a consultation on that in the new year.
	Finally, I will trot through some of the other points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North mentioned the importance of an EU-Norway deal. We absolutely recognise that, particularly the importance of access rights to Norwegian waters for much of the Scottish fleet. This sort of delay is not unusual—it happened last year and it has also happened in previous years—but we will press for the negotiations to begin early in the new year. Of course, there will be a provisional quota allocation to take account of the fact that there is no agreed TAC.
	On the survivability element of the landing obligation, I have talked quite a bit about how the landing obligation will work. There will be exemptions for species that have good survivability rates. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives said, it is important that we are able to return those fish that have a good survival rate.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Waveney spoke about the importance of trying to identify new markets for less fashionable fish. I agree that more can be done on that. In my constituency, a firm called Falfish markets pouting to the French, so there are sometimes export markets for some fish species.
	The hon. Member for St Ives mentioned points made by the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation. I confirm that I met Paul Trebilcock just this week, as well as representatives of the NFFO. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the Neptune project, and the way in which we can get better co-operation between science and fishermen.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the minimum landing size for bass. We remain committed to trying to develop that point at European level. One problem at the moment is that most of the bass is taken by the French fleet, so our having a minimum landing size unilaterally would not necessarily help very much. However, that is one measure for which we shall push at European level. We have also called for the closure of some spawning grounds to allow the stock to recover because, as he said, ICES has highlighted a particular problem on that front.
	The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan mentioned the EFF. I look forward to discussions with Scotland and devolved Assemblies elsewhere about the allocation of such funds. Scotland is still getting slightly more than England at the moment, so the situation is not all bad, but we will look at that. To answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes, we shall indeed roll over the EFF for another year during 2014.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall highlighted an issue that she has raised many times about the nought to 12-mile zone. It has always been a key priority for the UK to retain such a derogation during reform of the CFP, and that has been achieved. It is, however, important to recognise that the UK also benefits from historical access rights in the 6 to 12-nautical
	mile zone in Ireland, Germany, France and the Netherlands. We have to be careful about changing the approach too much, because we sometimes benefit from fishing in the waters of other countries.
	My hon. Friend’s more ambitious point about the 200-mile zone, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Luton North, is beyond the scope of what we are now talking about. She may want to submit it to the balance of competences review.

Barry Gardiner: Will the Minister address the point about deep-sea trawling, and the measures he will take?

George Eustice: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I was not avoiding the subject. On deep-sea trawling, we took the view that the European Parliament’s proposal of an outright ban was quite blunt. We recognise that there are issues, and we want to consider changing management measures and a different approach, but we do not believe that an outright ban on deep-sea trawling is the right way to proceed. Contrary to what he has said, the fact that a motion for that has been defeated opens the door to sensible negotiations on the type of management measures we want to see, and we will certainly press for that.

Peter Aldous: A number of hon. Members asked for an update on when the register of quota allocations and transactions will be published.

George Eustice: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me. I can tell him that that will be next week. Several hon. Members asked that question, and the register will be published, which is proof that DEFRA is capable of multitasking and undertaking complex negotiations, as well as publishing the fixed quota allocation register.
	If we are to achieve our goals, there is a lot of hard work ahead and we face some difficult challenges next week. I will do my utmost for all hon. Members who have raised concerns about aspects of the negotiations when I get to Brussels next week.

Margaret Ritchie: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and other hon. Members for securing the debate, through the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to the former fisheries Minister, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), as well as to the new Minister and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) for raising various issues. We have had nine speeches from Back Benchers this afternoon, plus two from Opposition and Government Front Benchers.
	Issues have been raised by all hon. Members about general fisheries matters, and the challenges faced in their dangerous occupation by fishermen right across Britain and Northern Ireland. Hon. Members have paid tribute to fishermen who have lost their lives over the past year, as well as to the many who have lost their lives over the past decade, and they have paid tribute to the central role of coastguards in safeguarding those in fishing and in relation to other issues.
	The debate has mainly centred on the common fisheries policy. We are grateful that there has been a conclusion in relation to its reform this week in Brussels, but we and the Minister will now have to concentrate on two areas. The first is the issue of discards, and there is no doubt that it presents many challenges. The second relates to regional advisory councils. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, I believe that, notwithstanding all the political difficulties, we must remain within the European Union. The EU does have a role, which will obviously come out in the debate and the consultation on the balance of competences. As the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), also emphasised, there is a role for the European Union, and that should be to determine the TAC.
	There is also a role for regional advisory councils in managing the quota, dealing with the allocations and ensuring that the totality of fishermen have the best quality of incomes, because that is beneficial. I represent the constituency of South Down, in which there are the two fishing ports of Ardglass and Kilkeel, and I know that both the offshore and the onshore are central to the local economies in terms of job creation and the income that will supply other retailers and be of benefit to families, which is absolutely essential.
	Among other issues raised were the roll-out of existing quotas, the whole dilemma in the north-east in relation to mackerel and the debate concerning Iceland and the Faroe Islands. That point was made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). The situation has been going on for several years and requires urgent resolution. Anything that the Minister can bring to that particular debate in his various discussions would be greatly appreciated.
	The subject of marine conservation zones has been raised, and we in Northern Ireland have also been confronted with that. Whether in relation to renewables in the Irish sea or anywhere around the British Isles, it is important that marine conservation zones simply help to supplement the fishing industry, and do not contravene or in any way undermine it. The one must supplement the other.

Jim Shannon: rose—

Margaret Ritchie: I know that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) wants to intervene, but I have several other points to make, and I have ensured that other hon. Members have had their say so far.
	In Northern Ireland we have two particular issues, the first of which relates to nephrops. It is against a positive background, because fishing has been doing well, that we—and particularly the Minister—face next week’s Fisheries Council, which will decide about catch opportunities for 2014. It is traditional, but also frustrating, that those who make a livelihood from fishing expect bad news in respect of the TAC proposals published by the European Commission before the negotiations. What has made fishermen in the Irish sea all the more nervous this time is the failure to communicate the proposed quota for area 7 nephrops to the industry in advance of the Fisheries Council or at least at the same time as the other quota proposals. I know that the new Minister freely acknowledges that. He spoke to me about the issue the other evening.
	On the basis of the scientific advice, the industry has, like officials, been able to make a good stab at the numbers. For prawns or nephrops in the Irish sea and the wider area 7, it equates to a proposed TAC reduction in 2014 of almost a quarter compared with 2013. A slightly better comparison shows that the scientific evidence demonstrates an 8% reduction from a year ago. Nevertheless, any reduction in the prawn TAC in area 7 would be unjustified. There are variations in the science year on year, but the same science confirms that the overall picture is stable, with prawns being harvested within the maximum sustainable yield principles. Surely that good news, combined with a recognition of the strides that have been taken by all fishermen in the Irish sea, provides sufficient reason to secure a roll-over of the 2013 TAC into 2014. I ask the Minister to make a special plea on behalf of those who are involved in nephrop fishing in the Irish sea. For us, nephrops are perhaps the only show in town.
	The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Strangford mentioned cod. There is an issue with cod in the Irish sea. By value and weight, the cod that are landed from the Irish sea equate to less than 1.5%. However, its iconic status pervades every demersal fishery. It is to be hoped that, come 2014, practical rules will apply that allow haddock and hake fisheries to be developed, while affording the necessary protection to cod. To achieve that, a roll-over of the 2013 quota for haddock in the Irish sea is needed. Against the background of a 17% increase in the stock, that is surely not too tall an order.
	After 14 years of failed fisheries targets and recovery measures, Irish sea cod present a dilemma, but they should not be seen as a lost cause. It is regrettable that a huge gulf remains between the science on the stock and what the fishermen believe to be the state of the stock. Unfortunately, that is where I and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North differ on this issue. I am deeply concerned about our local economy and local fishery. A further 20% reduction in the TAC in 2014 will
	do nothing to address the unknowns or the data deficiencies. The fisheries science partnership and sentinel fishery projects will grind to a standstill with such a reduction.
	Fishermen are at a loss to know how they can prove the negative position with regard to that stock. In many ways, they have been a victim of their own success, thanks to the highly selective gears and the much needed innovation in technology that was pioneered by Anglo-North Irish fish producers in Kilkeel. How can the fishermen prove that there are cod in the Irish sea when they use nets that are designed not to catch cod? More scientific technology is required. The promises to look at ways of addressing the problems, such as identifying the reason for the high level of unknown mortality in Irish sea cod, seem to have evaporated as far as the fishermen can see. However, as part of the new common fisheries policy, fishermen are further encouraged to develop new mixed fisheries and multi-annual plans. How can they do that when cod remains a choke species and so many unknowns remain in respect of that iconic fish?
	I now give way to my neighbour, the hon. Member for Strangford.

Jim Shannon: I just wanted to remind the hon. Lady that her time is running out.

Dawn Primarolo: Ms Ritchie, I think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to help you by pointing out gently that your 10 minutes have concluded. Perhaps you could sum up your remarks quickly.

Margaret Ritchie: I wish the new Minister well in his post and in the negotiations next week on behalf of all Members who have contributed to this debate, Members who represent fishing constituencies in Britain and Northern Ireland and those who sit on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which he was once a member.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered the fishing industry.

Ford and Visteon UK Ltd

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call the mover of the motion, I should inform the House that there is a case awaiting adjudication in the courts on this matter. In view of the length of time for which the case has continued and the distance of the date on which it is next to be heard, Mr Speaker has agreed to waive the sub judice rule to allow reference to be made to the matter. However, I ask Members to make every effort to avoid direct reference in debate to the matters awaiting adjudication and to focus their remarks on the facts of the case and any non-legal remedies that are available. I hope that that is helpful.

Stephen Metcalfe: I beg to move,
	That this House notes that, when Visteon UK Ltd was spun off from the Ford Motor Company, employees transferred from Ford’s pension scheme into the Visteon UK pension fund on the clear understanding that their pension rights would be unaffected; further notes that, when Visteon UK subsequently went into administration, now over four years ago, former Ford employees suffered a substantial reduction in their pension rights; regrets that the resolution of any court action is still some way off; believes that Ford should recognise a duty of care to its former employees and should make good the pension losses suffered by those worst affected without the need for legal action; and calls on the Government to use the power and influence at its disposal to help ensure that Ford recognises its obligations and accepts voluntarily its duty of care to former Visteon UK pensioners.
	Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for inviting me to open the debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group in support of Visteon pensioners, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time in the schedule to allow us to discuss this important national issue.
	I do not really want to be standing here, criticising one of Britain’s great institutions and highlighting publicly what I believe to be a scandal, but I must. I owe it to my constituents and to the thousands of former Ford employees who transferred their pensions from Ford to the new entity of Visteon to do so. An injustice has been done and it continues to be done. I therefore stand here more in sadness than in anger.
	This is a truly national issue. The request for today’s debate was signed by more than 10% of Members of this House and by Members who represent all parts of the country and sit in all parts of the House. Although a good number of Members are in the Chamber, there are many others who unfortunately cannot be with us. I mention in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who have Public Bill Committee duties.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I commend the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members for securing the debate. There are other Members, like me, who were unable to put their names to that request, but who are here and who support the motion. He is right to say that Ford is a good company. It employs 2,000 people in the neighbouring constituency of Bridgend. However, people who transferred their pensions to Visteon are at a loss in trying to explain why, when they were given categorical assurances, time after time, that their pensions would
	be safe and protected, they have not been. All we are asking Ford to do is to step up to the mark and comply with its moral obligations as well as its legal obligations.

Stephen Metcalfe: I could not agree more, and the issue transcends any legal debates that might be in a court of law. This is about trust and moral responsibility, and a fine company such as Ford has unfortunately blemished its character by not living up to the expectations of its former employees. That is the nub of the matter, and why I will address my remarks not so much to Ford in the UK, but perhaps to Ford globally. This is a global issue, and ultimately its resolution lies in Dearborn in the United States. I hope that Ford executives in the States are watching this debate, because it is they who are able to solve the issue.

Angela Watkinson: I apologise for being unable to stay for the whole debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that restitution to the Visteon pensioners would be good not only for them but for the reputation of Ford?

Stephen Metcalfe: Absolutely. As I have said, this is a stain on Ford’s character and it does not live up to people’s expectations of a blue-chip brand that has been in this country for more than 100 years. That is why I have taken up the issue with such passion over the past three and a half years. Ford is damaging itself as well as its former employees. I want those executives in the States to watch this debate and listen loud and clear to the message that comes from this House. Indeed, I would be very disappointed if they are not watching—particularly Alan Mulally, the chief executive, and Bill Ford, the executive chairman—and I ask them to step up and sort the issue out once and for all.
	I had hoped—as, no doubt, had many other Members—that our debate last year would have sparked some progress and provided the impetus needed to get justice done and see our constituents’ problems solved. Unfortunately, however, that was not the case and it is sad that we have had to come back a year later to rehearse many of the same arguments and ask Ford, again, to live up to its responsibilities. The Visteon pensioners find themselves in the same position; progress has been slow, and their fight for justice continues. Because of that, much of what I say today will sound similar to what I said last year, but it is worth repeating and I and colleagues will keep repeating the same message until Ford listens. To do anything else would be doing a great disservice to our constituents and to the Visteon pensioners, and I place on the record my total respect for the way they have conducted this campaign. Their dedication and commitment has been extraordinary, and that is one reason why I have been pleased to support their campaign.
	For those who are new to this topic, I will provide a little history. Visteon was the global parts manufacturer of the Ford motor company, and in June 2000 it was spun off in an attempt to reduce supply chain costs. Visteon employees were actively advised by Ford to transfer their pensions to the new Visteon scheme, and they were promised that in transferring they would still
	“receive the same benefits as at Ford, both now and in the future for all their pensionable service.”
	They were told in no uncertain terms that their accrued pension rights would be protected, and they were given no new contracts of employment. On the contrary, the new entity continued to use Ford’s logo, it remained affiliated, and people used the same identity cards as previously and received loyalty awards on Ford paper—the list is endless. The two companies remained intertwined, even after the spin-off.
	One thing that stands out after the spin-off is that Visteon UK never turned a profit after 2000—not in a single year. It ran up losses of approximately £800 million.

Mike Freer: I congratulate colleagues on securing this debate, and it is sad that we have to repeat the same arguments from last year. Does my hon. Friend remember reading the Detroit Free Press in November 2012, which I am sure it is a common read in his office? Tim Leuliette was asked:
	“Did Visteon have a chance when it was spun-off?”
	He said:
	“No. The labour cost issues and the burden and the overhead was so out of line with reality that it was almost comical. It just wasn’t going to work”.
	Does my hon. Friend agree that Visteon was simply set up to fail?

Stephen Metcalfe: With great sadness I must agree with my hon. Friend. When the chief executive of an entity the size of Visteon says that he could never work out how it was going to succeed, we can draw the conclusion that it was set up to fail. Someone somewhere must have known that the cost base was too high, and that Visteon did not have a bright future when it was spun off in 2000.

Hywel Francis: On that point, in his research, has the hon. Gentleman come across any other company of Ford’s standing, large or small, that has done what Ford did and set up a company almost to ensure that it fails?

Stephen Metcalfe: I have not, but I have confined my research to this issue. There was a trend back in the late 1990s and early 2000s for large motor companies to spin off their parts manufacturer and create separate entities, but Visteon never had a chance, certainly in the UK, as demonstrated by its profit and loss. It never made a profit, and no company that never makes a profit can succeed. Inevitably, in March 2009 Visteon collapsed, shortly before the global corporation went into chapter 11 in the United States. Following the collapse in the UK, it emerged fairly quickly that the UK pension fund was underfunded to the tune of about £350 million. That required the pension fund to be placed in the Pension Protection Fund for assessment, which ultimately left former Ford employees with much reduced pensions. Some suffered cuts of up to 50% to a pension they had paid into and had earned. Indeed, my constituent Dennis Varney, who has been leading the campaign so vigorously with me in the past few years, told me his story and I would like to share it with the House.
	Dennis joined Ford in 1967 as an apprentice toolmaker. He studied, worked, gained qualifications and got promoted. In 1973, he became a press toolmaker. In 1976, he transferred to the Basildon radiator plant and
	became responsible for maintaining press tools and related equipment in the manufacture of heat exchange components. In 1978, he was promoted again, with responsibility for the press shop. In 1986, he was promoted to senior manufacturing engineer and then to a management position in 1990. He went to university to study between September 1998 and 2000, and completed a degree course in engineering manufacturing. In 2000, he was transferred to Visteon UK after more than 32 years with Ford. At Visteon he held a management position in a simultaneous engineering group, and had 20 engineers reporting to him directly. In 2006, after 38 years of combined service, Dennis retired. He had worked a lifetime for a company he respected and trusted, and looked forward to a well deserved and well earned retirement.
	We can therefore imagine his dismay—I put it mildly—when Visteon collapsed and his pension was cut by almost 50%. What had he done to deserve this, other than provide decades of loyal service? This was Ford’s response to the plight of Dennis and the many others affected:
	“While Ford recognises the severity of the situation for former Visteon UK employees, Visteon became an independent company in 2000 and was responsible for its own business decisions…Ford fully fulfilled both its legal and moral responsibilities to former Visteon UK employees.”
	I, for one, do not think it did. I do not intend to comment on whether it fulfilled its legal obligations, as that matter may well go before the court. I remind Members of the words of Madam Deputy Speaker—to be cautious in what they say. Let me say, however, that in my view Ford has not met its moral obligations.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all the work he has done to try to secure justice for the Visteon pensioners. On that specific point and to avoid this situation in future, would he welcome the Government reflecting on the legal obligations of employers to employees who have their rights transferred to a spin-off company? One big weakness in this case is that the employees who transferred did not have access to good financial advice. We need to ensure that protections are in place for workers.

Stephen Metcalfe: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The root of the issue does not lie at the door of the Government, but the Government can do more to protect workers, particularly on how the Pension Protection Fund cap operates when long service is involved. The Government need to ensure that people receive proper, independent, sound financial advice when they are transferred to a new pension fund. That would be a good and sensible step forward.
	This is not a personal issue and I have no particular beef with the individuals I have dealt with at Ford. I have great respect for those who have worked with me on this issue over the past three and a half years—the former Ford UK chairman, Joe Greenwall; Christophe Clarke from the government affairs team; and, most recently, the director of government affairs, Madeleine Hallward—but is time for Ford globally to face up to its responsibilities and to do the right thing. I, with colleagues across the House, have been campaigning on this issue for nearly four years and we want to see it resolved.
	Some might argue, agreeing with Ford, that this has nothing to do with Ford, but I disagree. Yes, Visteon was an independent company, but as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), it never stood a chance, and someone somewhere knew it. I submit that Ford recognised it could source its parts cheaper from other companies around the world and needed to get rid of its expensive in-house manufacturing plants, so it spun them off. That is what Tim Leuliette said. He said it did not stand a chance: the cost base was too high, the overheads were too high, the labour costs were too high. It was totally out of sync with the running of a profitable motor business, so it was sent floating off on its own into the great blue yonder.
	That is why I am calling on Ford to meet its moral responsibilities. It knew that Visteon had no long-term future and that among the casualties when it inevitably collapsed would be thousands of former employees who had given loyal service. Those employees have now suffered serious pension losses. They transferred their pensions from Ford to Visteon in good faith, on the basis of trust. People trusted Ford, so when it gave them its assurances, they took them at face value. Why wouldn’t they? I would like to quote the words of John Hill, a former Ford employer, then Visteon pensioner, who unfortunately is no longer with us:
	“I had absolute faith in Ford, and I trusted them. Although over the years we had our ups and downs, everybody had a great respect for the company and a degree of affection for being part of its traditional values and the ‘family of Ford’. A long heritage, and the fact that they had been around for so long formed part of that trust. I just cannot believe that this could happen, and we have been betrayed.”
	Unfortunately, he is one of the pensioners who will never benefit, whatever the outcome of the court case and our campaign.
	Trust is important, as is family, and Ford likes to talk about family. When Bill Ford celebrated Ford’s 100th anniversary in the UK in 2011, he said:
	“I have always thought of Ford employees, dealers, suppliers and partners as members of our extended family. My visit here has confirmed that belief—it has felt like a homecoming.”
	He also said:
	“Ford of Britain has a proud heritage…The United Kingdom quickly became the most important market for our cars outside of the United States.”
	There is no doubt that Ford UK is a vital cog in the global Ford machine and Ford family, yet “family” is probably not the word that Visteon pensioners would associate with their former employers any longer. Simply put, people trusted Ford, and now they wish they had not. That is sad. Ford is a great company and has the potential still to be great in the future, but it is allowing its reputation to be tarnished by not stepping up to the plate. I am asking, in all good faith and in recognition of Ford’s contribution to the UK, that Ford do what is right by its former employees and resolve this issue. Yes, times are tough for the motor industry, especially in Europe, but this goes further than just a financial transaction; it is about restoring trust in what should be a rock-solid brand and removing a stain from Ford’s rich history.
	Finally, I can do no better than refer colleagues and the Government to the wording of the motion. That is why we are here and that is what we want—put simply: justice for our constituents.

Hywel Francis: I am pleased to take part in this critical debate, because the Visteon plant in south Wales is located in my constituency, and I do so on behalf of many of my constituents, many of whom have travelled to London today from Wales. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for securing this debate. As the chair of our all-party parliamentary group on Visteon pensioners, he is leading in Parliament the campaign to get justice for Ford and Visteon UK pensioners. I also pay tribute to my neighbouring MPs, my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea East (Mrs James) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who have done sterling work over many years on behalf of their constituents employed in the local Visteon plant. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East sends her good wishes for today’s debate. She is at home, convalescing after an operation, and I am sure everyone here will join me in sending our best wishes for a speedy recovery.
	I want to place on record our thanks to the Visteon pensioners action group and the trade unions for their diligent campaigning over many years. I particularly thank Rob Williams of Unite, who was originally from the village of Glyncorrwg in my constituency. His grandfather, the late Glyn Williams, a distinguished president of the South Wales miners union, would have been very proud of him and the campaigning he is undertaking on behalf of his colleagues.
	The case for justice for Visteon/Ford pensioners has already been made—and comprehensively so—by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, so I shall not repeat the unanswerable case that he made, other than fully to endorse what he said. What I would like to do today is to emphasise, as he did, the duty of care in the context of corporate social responsibility that Ford motor company needs to discharge to its former employees and their families.
	I received this simple, yet poignant message yesterday from one of my constituents, Carl Kirby of Cwmafan:
	“We hold meetings once a month and over the last year we have held a minute’s silence at nearly all for workmates that have passed on. This leaves their widows with a lower income, and I know a few have had to seek work to make ends meet. These men are not here to support their families now and their voices should still be heard.”
	That is why we are here today—to articulate these concerns on their behalf.
	Ford came to our locality in 1964—on to the site on the edge of Swansea that was previously occupied by the Prestcold refrigeration plant and that covered an area of 2 million square feet. It spent £20 million developing and expanding the plant to make it one of the largest and most modern car component factories in the whole of Europe. It grew rapidly from 2,000 employees in 1968 to 6,500 just over a decade later in 1980. Ford was therefore a major contributor to the Welsh economy, drawing its work force not just from Swansea, but from a wide area, encompassing neighbouring towns and villages across the whole of south-west Wales, often taking on the highly skilled labour that was leaving the declining coal mining industry.
	Ford’s growth paralleled that of its neighbour, BP, in the petrochemical industry, with its nearby plants at Llandarcy and Baglan Bay. Their parallel growth in the same period was followed by a parallel decline of both
	companies in the region. There, sadly, the similarity ends. While the closure of BP’s local plants was undertaken in an orderly way, the opposite was the case with Ford. BP followed a clear exit strategy, engaging local stakeholders, developing a range of local legacies and ensuring proper pension rights. It developed a widely admired “Aiming for a College Education” strategy with local schools, helped to sustain and improve local sports and leisure facilities, helped to develop Coed Darcy, a new village in my constituency, and, most striking of all, contributed to the establishment of an impressive science and innovation campus at Swansea university that is to be opened in 2015 on the sea front—ironically, directly opposite the old Ford/Visteon plant.
	We are speaking here of two world-class global companies: the one discharging its duty of care in an ethical way to its local employees and local communities, a model of corporate social responsibility over a long period; the other, sadly, retreating almost under cover of darkness, leaving employees, their families and their communities, desolate and in despair. It is not too late, however; Ford can redeem itself.

Geraint Davies: In the light of what my hon. Friend has said about the contrast between Ford and BP, does he think that viewers of this debate and those who read about it in the United States will be surprised, given what they are likely to think about BP after the oil spillage? In this case, it appears that BP does its best to do its best for its workers, whereas Ford clearly has not.

Hywel Francis: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and I agree with him.
	On behalf of all my constituents—those who are directly affected and those who are not—I urge Ford, at this late hour, to discharge its duty of care to all Ford and Visteon pensioners throughout the United Kingdom by giving them their full pension rights before any more retired employees depart this world without receiving what is theirs as of right.

Simon Burns: I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for the tremendous work that he has done as chair of the all-party parliamentary group in support of Visteon pensioners since his election to the House, and the way in which he has led his merry band of warriors in keeping this issue at the forefront of people’s minds. We are not prepared to allow it to fade away with time and be forgotten. I think that the strength of feeling and the outrage over what is basically an issue of decency and morality have been obvious in the two speeches that we have heard so far today.
	I, too, do not wish to use my speech to knock an international company that provides valuable jobs, expertise and innovation in this country. However, I am baffled by the fact that that it is seemingly being led by its north American approach to business—which is infinitely hard-nosed—and is not prepared to recognise what it is doing to a group of people who, although totally innocent,
	are being made to suffer ruined retirements, despite the assurances that they were given back in 2000 that their pensions would be looked after and would be on a par with the pensions of those who worked for Ford.
	I am surprised at Ford’s intransigence in not recognising its moral duty to act decently. I know that business can be very cynical—Bob Dylan used to say that money shouts—but one would have hoped that there was still a sense of decency, and that this company would be prepared to consider the position of a small group of people who, although they have fought magnificently, will always be the Davids in this David and Goliath battle.
	Like my hon. Friend, I find it sad that nothing has moved forward since the last debate, in which I was unfortunately unable to participate because I still wore the shackles of ministerial office. It seems that if we are not careful and if Ford is not prepared to regain its sense of decency, the matter may have to be resolved in the courts, which I do not think is in anyone’s interests, especially given the time scale.
	It appears from all the evidence that even if, back at the turn of the century, Ford was following what other companies were doing and removing its suppliers from its direct control by creating new companies, the hands of Visteon, a company created to be independent from Ford, were tied from the outset. I understand that Ford had a virtual monopoly over the parts coming out of Visteon, and was thus in a position to drive down prices unilaterally. There was no proper, vibrant, functioning market, and that is not in any independent company’s natural interest. I also understand that Visteon had to buy its materials from the Ford foundry in Leamington, although they could have been obtained elsewhere at a more competitive and lower price. Once again, Ford seems to have kept Visteon’s hand behind its back and thwarted any opportunity that it might have had to develop as a vibrant, successful company.
	I find it incredible that when Ford was keen to create Visteon and cast it aside, in effect, from Ford itself, those who worked for Ford and were going to be employees of the new Visteon were advised that the Ford European works council agreement guarantees that
	“Visteon employees transferring their past service benefits to the Visteon Fund will receive the same benefits as at Ford, both now and in the future for all their pensionable service.”
	Beyond that, employees were encouraged to join the Visteon scheme and transfer their pensions with statements such as:
	“Your accrued pension rights will be protected.”
	To me, and probably to all those people who were about to become Visteon employees, those were cast-iron, concrete statements of fact that gave them protection.
	We also have to remember that this is not some plan to change pension arrangements in the future. I accept that many private companies over the last decade—as well as Government, and including Members of this House—have been changing their pension arrangements because it has been found that the existing arrangements are too expensive in the current economic climate. They are moving to salary-average schemes, but that is always for the future. They do not start tinkering with the commitments, the payments, the arrangements and the deals that have been done in the past. These changes are
	for the future. That is not what has happened to the Visteon pensioners, however. Their pensions—that they took out in good faith, and that they believed were safe and secure for all their pensionable life—have now, because of what happened to Visteon in 2009, been noticeably, and in some cases severely, cut by this cynical operation to create a new company independent of Ford.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, particularly on this issue of the assurances that were given to Visteon pensioners. He, like me, will have received the Visteon action group briefing so he is clearly familiar with this quote:
	“Your accrued pension rights will be protected.”
	It was also stated that “not only” would their pension be “secure” but it would be in their best interests to “transfer” their pension and their pension benefits were “guaranteed”. People were not being greedy or stupid; they were acting in the best interests of their families and themselves on the best available advice, and it is morally repugnant for a company to walk away from those assurances now, when they were either delivered by that company or were vetted by that company before being delivered.

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point because he is absolutely right. There were no weasel words. There were no cop-out clauses or any excuses that could be made that people had misunderstood what had been said to them or the commitments that had been given to them. They were, in so far as anything in life can be, cast-iron guarantees that those people, who in most cases had worked so loyally for so long for Ford, would have their pensions guaranteed. Having met a number of them, including constituents of mine, I have no doubt that they feel as though they have been kicked in the stomach because of what has happened to them and that they are having to suffer through no fault of their own.
	That is why I say that Ford—and in particular Ford in the United States of America, which I believe is leading Ford in the UK on this issue—should sit down and quietly consider their conscience again. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) says, “If they’ve got one,” and I can understand why he says that because it does seem that they are without conscience. Of course companies have a responsibility to their existing work force and their shareholders to make a profit, but this is even more important: “You don’t make a profit if you don’t have a loyal, hard-working and decent work force.” If the company is prepared to see some of its work force treated like that, despite the cast-iron guarantees that it gave them, we have to wonder what kind of conscience it has.
	I hope that the company will think again as a result of this debate and of the lobbying by Members on both sides of the House, by the trade unions, by the action group and by others, and that it will not consider drawing the matter out even longer, because, sadly, some of those pensioners will die during that time. I hope that the company will do the decent thing, the morally right thing, and restore those pensions to the people who should never have had them taken away from them in the first place.

Geraint Davies: I come to this debate with mixed feelings. I feel grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Speaker for allowing us to have this great debate in the mother of all Parliaments, from where it will be transmitted across the pond to the United States, where Ford’s ears will be pricking up, as will the ears of Ford’s consumers, who will be thinking twice about whether the Ford brand is whiter than white when they choose their next car.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and others for the work they have done with me to keep this show on the road and to keep up the pressure on Ford. Ford might have thought that, after the early rumbles of protest, the noise would die down to a whisper. Instead, we are turning up the volume, and the lion’s roar from Britain will be heard in the United States today and in the future.
	I am also grateful to the Visteon workers who are with us today, up in the Gallery, and to the many others who have come here on coaches at other times and who continue their fight in London, Cardiff, Essex, Liverpool and Northern Ireland. They continue to demand justice in all corners of the United Kingdom, and that demand is echoed today in all corners of this great Chamber by all the parties.
	I come here with sadness as well. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned the fact that Ford came to south Wales in 1964. At the time, my father was heading up economic development in the Welsh Office, and he was critical in bringing Ford to south Wales. He is no longer with us, but I remember his story about the chairman of Ford turning up at the Welsh Office in Cardiff in a green Rolls-Royce—believe it or not—to talk about the arrangements and inducements to get Ford to the area. That was more than 30 years ago, and perhaps Ford had a different outlook and focus on wider communitarian values in those days.
	So I come to the debate with thanks and with sadness, and also with a degree of frustration and anger that we find ourselves here. We have been engaging with Ford UK, and it has been forthcoming in engaging in dialogue, but its hard-nosed American bosses, sitting in their directors’ boardroom, seem to think that this issue will just go away and that the workers of the UK can be treated as some kind of offshore group of people that they can forget about. It has been mentioned that many of the people who have suffered are now dead, and I believe that Ford is hoping that the issue will go away. I and other Members from all parties say this: “Ford, you can run but you can’t hide away from your responsibilities. We will continue to fight for our constituents, year after year, until this matter is resolved.” Madam Deputy Speaker, you mentioned that this matter was before the courts and that decisions have yet to be made, but we are talking not about the legalities of the case but about moral responsibility and the duty of care that should be shown by this multinational towards its employees, in respect of pensions in particular.
	Members will know that I introduced the Multinational Motor Manufacturing Companies (Duty of Care to Former Employees) Bill, which covers this ground, but the Minister might also wish to comment on the big
	conversation that is taking place between the global multinationals, sovereign states, workers and consumers. There have been debates in this House about the responsibility of multinationals, be it Amazon, Google or Vodaphone, to pay their fair share of tax. Vodaphone had the biggest share transaction in history, or at least this century, involving £53 billion, but not a penny was paid in corporation tax. How are we going to re-orchestrate things with other countries to ensure that global corporations are not globe-trotting away from their responsibility?
	That is a bigger conversation, and I know that people are engaged on the tax side of it, but its other side is the fair treatment of workers. We have heard reports, for instance on “Panorama”, of what Amazon is doing, and I am following through on that, as it is a local company in my constituency, too. As with Ford, we are talking about big companies that provide big employment and are crucial to all our towns and cities, but that does not mean they can run away from their responsibilities on fair tax, fair play and the fair treatment of consumers and workers, be they current, previous or future.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on bringing the matter to the House for consideration. I have been told by one Belfast worker that the workers
	“rights were guaranteed not for the lifetime of the Belfast plant, but for the working lifetime of the individual workers. Therefore, their redundancy rights were guaranteed for as long as the workers remained employed, and their pension rights were guaranteed until they reached retirement age”
	and beyond. We can understand the anger of those workers and their disbelief and dismay at what took place. Is it not time that the big company in America stepped up to the mark and paid out?

Geraint Davies: The hon. Gentleman makes his point with typical focus and strength. The Belfast workers will be looking at today’s debate and asking how Ford will respond. The Ford directors cannot sit around with their hands covering their eyes, ears and mouths, pretending that this will go away. They may think it can be kicked into the long grass of the lawyers, where there is an army supported by a huge ammunition dump of money to keep it there, but their business ultimately depends on the good will of consumers.
	This is not just about Ford manufacturing innovative, efficient and modern cars; it is about the brand being one that people can be proud of. It is about not hiding behind the brand name a predisposition towards running away from responsibilities to people who have spent a working lifetime, in good faith, making quality cars for people to buy, for a business that is viable. It is simply not acceptable for the people to whom those workers have expressed such loyalty to walk away and leave them near destitute. We will not accept it in our House, our community or across our shores. I believe that the ethics of American consumers and American workers, both in Ford and beyond, mean that they will share our sentiments that we are in it together, to use those immortal words, in terms of our future and how this works. People may increasingly make consumer choices
	for ethical reasons—various brands have ethical dimensions and do the right thing—and this could be one of those instances.
	I am not going to dwell on the details of the case. I simply say that it appears, on the face of things, that various undertakings were given to Ford workers which, as has been pointed out, any lay person would interpret as cast-iron guarantees, whatever the legal beagles might construe, with massive expense, could conceivably have been meant. Almost everybody took those assurances as being cast-iron guarantees.
	The Ford pension fund was initially set up £49 million light and by the end of the period of Visteon’s existence—the nine or 10 years in which it continued, when, as has been said, it lost nearly $1 billion and did not turn a profit—that pension fund had become underfunded by some £350 million. The knock-on effect for the more than 3,000 workers who have been affected is a savage cut in the future incomes they can expect into their retirement and their capability to sustain a future of dignity and enjoyment in older age that they deserve.
	It has been pointed out that Ford was, in essence, manipulating the profit and loss account of Visteon. On the input side, it was able to demand a certain input of raw materials at specific prices that may have been above the market price, so the input cost was up. On the output side, 90% of Visteon’s sales were set by Ford, which consistently reduced the prices that it was given to squeeze the profit of Visteon, so it was no surprise that it was making a loss and that that loss was manifested in the pension fund.
	Interestingly and coincidentally, if we look at figures for 2005-06, Visteon Europe lost £700 million and Ford Europe made £700 million in profit. The point I am trying to make is that their accountancy animal was woven together—that £700 million could have gone either way. In essence, Ford chose the loss to fall on Visteon and on the workers who had nobly and loyally served it for so many years.
	I know that a number of Members want to speak so I will not go on. In the evidence we took in the all-party group, and before that, we heard stories of representatives from Ford who, after sitting on the board of Visteon pension fund trustees and then having a vested interest in the closure of the plant, transferred their own pension out of the Visteon pension fund into a specially created fund—another Visteon pension fund, the engineering scheme. Clearly, they had a different and conflicting interest. We asked Phil Woodward, who was a director of the trustees, to give evidence to the all-party group, but what do Members think happened? He did not turn up. What does that say about this whole saga? The more we scratch the surface of this story, the worse it gets.

James Duddridge: I find it fascinating that people did not turn up to give evidence. If there were a Select Committee inquiry, could we not ultimately bring in those whom we want to give evidence from wherever they are, including the current Ford executives? Could they not be forced to come here in the same way that Rupert Murdoch was?

Geraint Davies: Yes, with pie on their faces! On a serious note, I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That point has been made in the all-party group, and we have been trying to get a Select Committee to take on
	this matter. Possible options included the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. When we took it to the Welsh Affairs Committee, there were concerns that the matter was sub judice. However, Mr Speaker has now ruled that the matter has been trundling on for far too long. We are four years into the campaign and there will be another year at least before there is a court hearing. Clearly, we cannot wait for ever, and there is a role for this Parliament to express itself and to ask questions about what has gone on and the duty of care.
	What I say in response to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent question is that we have thought about that, but as the momentum has been building and we have now reached this point—we have had questions, discussions, early-day motions, a Westminster Hall debate and now this major debate in the Chamber—we should be aiming, given that we have the implicit sanction of Mr Speaker, to take the matter back to the Select Committees and demand that those executives give evidence. If they do not want to come, they can be dragged here screaming and shouting.
	Ford needs to think carefully about doing the right thing for the workers and for the brand as this rolls on and as reporters in America say, “Hold on. Why are all parties in Britain uniting to say things about the glorious Ford? What about Henry Ford? What a great bloke he was. Wouldn’t he turn in his grave if he knew what was happening?”
	Other people might talk about more of the detail, but there are some difficult questions that the brand managers and marketing managers for Ford need to think carefully about. What does Ford mean now in a qualitative and quantitative group? What will it look like in a month’s time, or a year’s time? What will it look like against emerging competitors, whether they are Nissan, General Motors or whatever? How is this playing and what are people saying about it?
	My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) mentioned BP, which, of course, took an enormous financial hit after its environmental issues and also took a hit to its brand values and to perceptions of what it cares about. Those are enormous things for global players. If we, in an advanced western democracy—the seventh largest economy in the world—do not stand up for people and cannot get a global company such as Ford to come to here and do the right thing, we are setting an example for less developed countries where global players might go in and out and cause social, economic and environmental harm.
	It is time to say enough is enough. We are one global community, so let us work together and play together for the good of all countries. We should bring something to the table and remember that democracies here and elsewhere will work together to ensure fair play for pensioners, for consumers and for workers, as well as good jobs and good cars. Let us work together for a better world. Come on Ford, do the right thing. Stop hiding and put your money on the table.

John Whittingdale: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) not just on securing the debate from the Backbench Business Committee but on how he has led the campaign, which
	has been supported on both sides of the House, as demonstrated this afternoon. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who has also been tireless in pursuing the matter. It is notable that four parties are represented in the House this afternoon. Sometimes MPs put aside their party differences and come together when it is plain that there has been an injustice that needs to be put right. That is certainly the case with the issue we are debating this afternoon.
	There is a danger in such a debate that one simply repeats the points that have been made. We have already heard some powerful speeches from both sides of the House, such as that from my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), who represents many of the Essex Visteon pensioners, as I do. As has been pointed out, it is particularly sad that it is necessary to have this debate a second time—I participated in the debate in Westminster Hall—because we all still have great respect and admiration for the Ford Motor Company. It has a proud history in this country and a strong reputation across the world, yet this is a terrible stain on that reputation.
	It is perhaps because Ford has previously been seen as such a strong company that it was understandable that its employees, who had given many years of service, should believe the assurances they were given when they told that they were being transferred to the Visteon company and that their pensions could be transferred to a new Visteon pension fund. I will not repeat the quotations given by many hon. Members about how they were told that there would be no detriment and that their pensions were guaranteed under the same terms and conditions. Of course they believed that, yet today they find that the position is very different.
	It is particularly sad when one meets and talks to employees who gave many years of service to Ford that now seems to be ignored and forgotten because for a few years—or even, in some cases, for a few months—they transferred to the Visteon company. In particular, I mention Mr Steve Sharpe, my constituent from Heybridge, who spent 27 years working for the Ford Motor Company and three months working for Visteon, yet has lost 50% of his pension. On any grounds, that is clearly wrong and should be recognised as such by the Ford Motor Company. What makes it worse is that—we have heard reference to this—it appears that Ford knew perfectly well that the Visteon company could not succeed, and indeed took actions after its establishment which made absolutely certain that it was not viable in the long term.
	Also, we know that the Visteon pension fund was underfunded right from the start. In the discussions that we have had as part of the all-party group, we have talked to the Pensions Regulator, for instance. It is perhaps a matter of regret that the Pensions Regulator was not in place at the time that this happened. It is perhaps worth speculating that had we had the Pensions Regulator, this situation would not have been allowed to arise. I am grateful to see on the Front Bench the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), who responded to the previous debate so is familiar with this injustice.
	At that time we talked about the way in which the cap on the Pension Protection Fund affected some former employees of Visteon. That is something that
	the Government have sought to address, but it is still impacting severely on some pensioners of the Visteon company. Perhaps the Minister might touch on that in his response.
	As we know, there is a legal case pending, and I of course hear the instruction from the Chair. We do not want to prejudice in any way the legal proceedings that are under way. It should not be necessary because ultimately it is not a question of whether or not Ford acted within or outside the law. It is, as Members in all parts of the House have said, a question of corporate social responsibility. It is a question of the reputational damage that this is doing to Ford across this country and beyond, and it is a question of morality and decency.

Bob Russell: The Minister will have noticed the unity of Essex MPs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the legal skirt behind which Ford is trying to hide is shrinking all the time and the petticoat of morality is now around its ankles?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman puts it in his unique style. I think I agree with the message he is giving.
	As I say, we will wait to see what happens in the courts, but I hope we do not have to, and that the Ford Motor Company will hear the message being sent from this Chamber this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) talked about the possibility of a Select Committee hearing. Whether or not we could force the Ford Motor Company to come to this country to a Select Committee is not entirely clear. I have had some experience of forcing people to come before Select Committees, and there is a problem if they are on the other side of the Atlantic. Again, that should not be necessary.
	What should be apparent from hearing all the Members who have spoken this afternoon is the overwhelming moral case of the people who gave years of service to the Ford Motor Company and were told that they would be looked after in the future, yet now have suffered real loss due to the fact that they were transferred to the new company, which in a sense was almost bound to fail.
	It is just a couple of weeks before Christmas. If the Ford Motor Company wanted to give a Christmas present, it should honour its moral obligations to the Visteon pensioners.

Nick de Bois: I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for securing this debate and the spirit in which it is being held. We have all been at pains to stress our understanding and support for Ford as a major employer in this country, and I echo those sentiments. It has a proud history and plays a very significant role in our industrial base. Notwithstanding that, I do not believe that this House has ever been prevented from doing or saying the right thing when it matters, and I think we do so in that spirit today.
	I do not wish to repeat the points that have already been made, but that does not mean I do not agree with them. I will highlight one or two specific areas, but
	before doing so I would like to say that I, like many Members here, am conscious of Visteon’s national reach, because it has reached into many constituencies. I compliment all of them on the conduct of their campaign, which at all times has been impassioned and powerful, but also courteous and respectful. I pay particular tribute to my neighbours and constituents in Enfield, whom I admire for their tenacity, of which I have had first-hand experience. I am delighted to be here to speak for them on the matter.
	Ford, we are told, even on its website today, is a family of global vehicles and global employees. I think that they probably believe that, but today we have seen the evidence that that is not quite true.

Geraint Davies: I need to leave the Chamber for 10 minutes to give an interview to discuss whether or not Ford is a happy family across the pond, and how important it is for us to act to make it so for the future so that everybody has their fair share. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having to leave, but I want to air that on the media.

Nick de Bois: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and understand that he has to attend to pressing priorities, and rightly so.
	I would like to highlight two points. We have talked about the possible lack of understanding at Ford in the US about the consequences of the decisions that were taken here in the UK. I have considerable experience—some might say that I have the scars on my back—of working in America, having worked with American businesses and set up my own business there. It is an extremely different culture, particularly when it comes to employee relations. I can speak only about my area, and of course the company was not a substantive corporation like Ford, but I know that the work force protection schemes in America are nothing like those in this country, and many say that we have some of the least onerous schemes, compared with the rest of Europe. In America, an employer can hire and fire almost at will without recompense. There are a limited set of protections for redundancy or sacking with or without cause, but it is a very different culture. We may speak the same language, but we are not necessarily united by it in our practices.
	It may well be that people in the boardrooms in America do not understand the implications or the potential harm to their reputation of pressing ahead and distancing themselves from the issues facing the pensioners of Visteon. I urge them to listen carefully and to imagine themselves not in the boardrooms of America looking over here, but over here looking at it through the eyes of their UK allies and partners. They might then understand what has driven us to the Chamber today and what has driven the unrelenting cause of Visteon pensioners.

Stephen Metcalfe: Does my hon. Friend agree that had the situation occurred in the United States and 3,500 employees who had worked for such an iconic corporation were banging on Ford’s front door in Dearborn because they had had their pensions reduced so dramatically, the issue might have been solved long ago? It is out of sight and out of mind over here.

Nick de Bois: I am afraid that I have to agree with my hon. Friend. I cannot give an example off the top off my head, but it is certainly true that companies are often preoccupied with what is happening on their own side of the pond, whichever side that is, and even for a global corporation it is still challenging to understand the dynamics that drive the worker-employee relationship and the customer relationship. He makes the point extremely well.
	We have heard evidence today that Visteon was, to all intents and purposes, a captive supplier—of that there is little doubt. Given the choice of being a captive supplier or a partner, of course companies in these business environments seek to be a partner. As a supplier, they have to strive for a long-term relationship to guarantee the future of their business and employees. It is interesting that Ford’s supply chain strategy, which was started some considerable time ago, was to develop an aligned business framework with suppliers that recognised the need to work closely with them in a way that is, according to its website,
	“designed to create a sustainable business model to increase mutual profitability”
	and encourage a long-term partnership. That implies a deep and close understanding of the business dynamics at play in Visteon, including the financial accounts; it cannot mean anything else.
	I was surprised to read that Ford spokesmen still stick to this line:
	“While Ford recognises the severity of the situation for former Visteon UK employees, Visteon became an independent company in 2000 and was responsible for its own business decisions.”
	That does not sit comfortably with the reality of working with a captive supplier or partner, or someone who aspires to be an aligned business framework supplier. That suggests that there are grounds for genuine doubts as to whether the demise of Visteon was part of a strategy, first, to reduce a burden of cost on Ford’s balance sheet, and subsequently, to change its supplier base. I carefully say that that is the question it is perfectly legitimate to ask in the light of its strategy statements about how closely it works with its suppliers.
	The moral case has been explored today, and I obviously add my weight to that, but let me add some perspective on the financial matters facing Ford Motor Company globally. Yes, it faced some challenging times. Certainly, the whole industry faced some challenging times, not least in the previous three to five years that we know about all too well. However, its record now is more than satisfactory. While its European business is still undergoing some financial restructuring, the last quarter saw a $1.27 billion profit. In fact, its operating basis was $1.82 billion for the quarter, but the notes to its accounts say that that was reduced to $1.27 billion because it was restructuring in Europe, including large pension lump sum payoffs. If my constituents and the other Visteon pensioners were part of those payoffs, this would be a far happier time for them and for Members in this House who represent them.
	I urge Ford in the US not only to challenge itself on the moral case but to look itself in the eye and say that this is a relatively small price for an exceptionally profitable company whose results have been delivered by employees who not only worked for it but then worked in its supply chain. Then it can live up to the values that it has until recently had cause to be proud of.

Rebecca Harris: I, too, congratulate my parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), on his outstanding work in chairing the all-party group on Visteon and on securing this important debate.
	It is very sad that, in the year the Ford family is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its first moving assembly line, we are having a debate about how poorly it has treated former proud members of its family and about how best we can support them and—I think we are all united in this—persuade Ford to recognise its moral obligation following its treatment of Visteon workers.
	Ford has a good reputation for looking after its staff, and those constituents of mine who still work for Ford speak very highly of the way they are treated by the company. They have a great attachment to the brand and genuinely feel part of it. I think that makes the situation rather more heartbreaking for Visteon workers, who used to wear the familiar Ford logo with pride, but now feel compelled, after the treatment they have received, to campaign with a blue oval “Fraud” logo on their hats instead.
	When I first became aware of the closure of Visteon, I, like many others, may have initially mistaken it for yet another sign of the depressing state of the economy back in 2009. It was not until I met a substantial number of residents who had previously been Visteon employees that it became very apparent to me that its collapse and the subsequent pensions issue for former employees was down to something more sinister, some of the details of which have already been well covered.
	At that first meeting in my office, I was struck by what a sensible and level-headed bunch of men they were. They were definitely not the kind of men, in my opinion, who would recklessly take any advice from or let themselves be conned by a flashy sales pitch that other people might have said sounded too good to be true. Put simply, they are men who had worked hard all their lives to provide for themselves and their families, and for what they hoped would be a decent standard of living in retirement. In political-speak, we would say they are people who have worked hard and done the right thing, and that is why we are all in unison in supporting them in their fight with Ford.
	I hope they will not be offended if I say that they are not all of an age whereby someone could glibly suggest that they go and get another skilled career in order to rebuild their shortfall. As we have heard, some of the Visteon pensioners have already passed away and missed the opportunity to be recompensed, and therein lies the rub.
	These are people who gave many years of loyal service to Ford prior to the establishment of Visteon. They trusted the advice given by Ford at the time—that their pensions would be safely protected in the new arrangements; otherwise, they would never have moved over to Visteon. I add my own admiration to that voiced by colleagues for the effective and downright dogged way in which they have run their brilliant campaign, including demonstrating outside the Ford dealership in Rayleigh Weir in my constituency every Saturday, come rain, snow, blistering sun or, on occasion, flood. I commend them for their determination.
	Let me get back to the basics of the matter. Visteon was spun off by Ford in order to reduce its operating costs. It was never functionally independent because it relied on Ford for about 90% of its business. Ford was even in a position to dictate the price at which it could buy back its product. In fact, I understand that it agreed a pricing pathway with Visteon management at the establishment of the company, but that agreement was never stuck to. The staff who transferred from Ford to Visteon were never even given separate contracts with the new company. Of course, with the benefit of hindsight one might now say that a successful multinational such as Ford was hardly likely to create and spin off a company that would be respectably profitable in the future. Perhaps that was the only warning sign we had.
	Given what we have heard over the past three years, the situation seems to have gone further than that. The House has heard the view that Ford set up Visteon to fail, and loaded the pension fund with a deficit that was never going to be sustainable. What is even more unforgiveable for the former Ford employees is that it would appear that Ford—the primary customer of Visteon products—had actively anticipated and planned for the shutdown of UK Visteon operations since way back in 2006.
	The Visteon Pension Action Group has documents compiled by Ford management—which went to great lengths to keep them away from Visteon employees—that give details of plans for projects to allow other companies to seamlessly pick up the supply chain when the UK plants closed. The high-level project was apparently known as “Kennedy”, and was directly controlled by Ford Motor Company personnel who were responsible for agreeing new supplier sources and the cost and quality of new products, and for releasing those products into the Ford production system. Visteon UK, as the incumbent supplier, was responsible for identifying potential new suppliers and developing them to meet Ford criteria for cost, quality and supply logistics. I gather that such lower-level projects were known as Protea, Cummins D3 and Arrow. They do not mean an awful lot to me, but they do to the pensioners in the action group.
	It should be noted that, depending on product complexity, normal resourcing action takes between 12 and 24 months to allow time for the manufacture of new tooling, initial production runs, quality and testing checks, and supply filling. It therefore seems quite clear that Ford Motor Company was directly involved in such resourcing actions. When Visteon UK stopped supplying Ford very abruptly on going into administration on 31 March 2009, Ford vehicle operations did not stop for one second due to any lack of parts. Stockpiling of Visteon parts had taken place and the new supplier parts were available immediately. As we have heard, it is of course completely reasonable for companies to put in place contingencies in case a supplier folds, but that eventuality was completely within the power and design of Ford Motor Company.
	It seems to me that Ford was therefore involved in the deconstruction of Visteon at least three years before the company went into administration. Ford knew that the pension fund deal it had put in place, and which it had encouraged its workers to take—allowing them to trust it in moving on to that deal—would mean that thousands of employees would be left out of pocket. That is why I
	believe that Ford has a moral obligation to come to the table with MPs and the Visteon Pension Action Group to agree a fair and just deal for Visteon employees.
	The cause of the action group has been greatly frustrated by the fact that tougher rules on pension regulation came in several years after the Visteon pension scheme was established. I welcome the Government’s announcement earlier this year that the cap on compensation payments from the Pension Protection Fund will rise to 3% for pensioners with a record of more than 20 years’ service.
	It is my sincerest hope that executives watching this debate in the boardroom in the States take note of what has been said today, and of the damage that the whole situation is doing to their otherwise good reputation among their own employees and to their brand in general. Finally, I once more congratulate the members of the Visteon Pension Action Group on their campaign so far, and I assure them of my and my colleagues’ continued support in this Chamber for their fight, because they all deserve justice.

James Duddridge: It is a great privilege to follow such an enviable group of MPs, particularly those from Essex. We started with eminent words from Basildon and then moved down the estuary to those from Castle Point, and we will end—I hope on a high point—in Rochford and Southend East. Several points have been made, and I will take care not to reiterate them, even to add emphasis.
	Not in the last debate on Visteon but in the one before that, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) referred to Ford as
	“a four-letter company, behaving in a four-letter way”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 182WH.]
	Hon. Members will recognise that we normally speak in very temperate language, so people should bear in mind how strongly we all feel about this issue. Very rarely is there a debate in which such strong words are used as we have heard today from both sides of the House. It has been not so much a debate as a siren call for action. Points have been made from either side, but they have all pressed Ford in the same direction.
	I must disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who felt that the issue was a stylistic change between American and British business practices and some type of misunderstanding. If it had involved Baltimore rather than Basildon, or Seattle rather than Swansea, the same lack of duty of care and the same lack of moral responsibility towards employees would not have been tolerated.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has travelled to the US and had informal discussions with several Congressmen. I hope that in the near future that can be formalised by making a request that the US Congress look at the issue alongside us, which will increase the pressure on Ford Motor Company.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen the film “Made in Dagenham”, but it clearly brings out the very close relationship between Ford and the unions, and how the workers trusted it to
	give them the best deal. In that respect, have not the workers been greatly let down? They expected a deal to be made that was good for them and they had put their trust in the company, but they were sitting ducks to be misled.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Not only have I watched the film, but one of my constituents, Lesley Butcher, starred in it in a voiceover role. She is also an excellent parish councillor in Rochford, but that is her claim to fame. That goes to show what a close community we are. The community trusted Ford and was badly let down.
	The motion has been signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns). People who do not know his background might think that his speech verged on being anti-American. Given his strong passion for that country, I do not think it can be seen as anti-American. He will certainly be distraught that the project that allowed the supply chain to continue had the name Project Kennedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) made the very good point that this was clearly not an independent company. Project Kennedy allowed the continuity of the supply chain. Effectively, the directors and managers of Ford were shadow directors of Visteon. They were manipulating what went on in that separate company.
	I hesitate to share with the House my ambitions as a young child.

Stephen Metcalfe: Oh, do.

James Duddridge: I am urged to do so, so I will. I wanted to be a Conservative Member of Parliament and I have achieved that. I wanted to have a purple pool table, and I hope that my wife reads Hansard tomorrow so that she knows what to get me as a Christmas present. I have always wanted a Ford Capri Mk II. It saddens me that, even if I had the space and the money, I would not be prepared to buy a Ford now. I am not irresponsible enough to call on my constituents, many of whom work at Ford, to boycott Ford in its entirety. However, I am sure that there are many people like me who are proud of Ford’s heritage, like Ford cars and like the Mustang that is coming out, but who would not think of buying a Ford car because of Visteon.
	Every Saturday, I go to mini-football with my son and I sit alongside somebody who works at Ford. I have discussed the Visteon issue with him. I am fearful that an organisation that has made such a mistake with Visteon may very well make it again. Are the pension funds of Ford safe at the moment? If I were a Ford employee, I would be very fearful of that.
	I do not know what Ford executives consider to be normal behaviour within a family, but this is no way to behave. If we follow the analogy, such behaviour would lead to divorce, family breakdown and great woes. Ford has let us down consistently. There is a small window of opportunity between now and the court case for it to do the right thing morally by our constituents, six of whom have made direct representations to me. If it does the right thing kicking and screaming, only when forced to by the courts, it deserves to take no credit whatever. It needs to act now, before the court case.

Gregg McClymont: May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on securing this debate? We have heard unanimity across the House on the issues at stake.
	I have been struck by the strong sense in the contributions to this debate that Ford has a moral responsibility to take seriously the issues that have emerged since Visteon’s collapse. That point has been put across eloquently by Members from across the House. That moral responsibility comes from the fact that Ford workers, who had given many years of service, believed that their pensions were safe. Some of those workers are with us today. Members from across the House have made the point that Ford is a blue-chip brand with a long track record in the UK. For those reasons, this case has continued to arouse strong feelings on both sides of the House.
	I ask hon. Members across the House to reflect on how one ensures that companies engage in and understand their responsibilities beyond the bottom line. Another way to describe a moral responsibility is to say that companies, corporations and those that employ people in our country have obligations beyond just the maximum profit they can make. That is certainly what the workers at Ford always felt, and they were assured—and felt assured—that in transferring their pensions to Visteon, their accrued rights would be protected.
	It is important to add and iterate—I suspect the Minister will want to reflect on this—that at play here is the wider issue of what happens when occupational pension schemes get into trouble and it is discovered that they are sponsoring an employer that is going under. The previous Government, reacting to the Visteon case and to other well-known examples, created the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund. I suspect the Minister will want to say something about the interaction between those institutions—not just the pensions landscape as it sits now, but as it relates to Visteon pensioners. Indeed, he recently proposed an amendment to the Pensions Bill so that the cap on payments under Pension Protection Fund regulations can be raised. I understand that there are Visteon pensioners who will benefit from that—those who might have retired before Visteon collapsed, but who have long years of service with Ford and then Visteon—but it is not a solution for all those pensioners.
	A significant question that has been raised by Members across the House concerns what the Government can do and need to do to ensure and underpin occupational pension arrangements. The Pension Protection Fund and Pensions Regulator are central to that, and if I remember rightly, the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock said that the Government can do more on the cap and the need for proper independent advice on transfers.
	Pensions are a complicated business, and during pension transfers from one company to another, employees inevitably depend on the advice they are given from what they understand to be expert sources.

Simon Burns: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I should be grateful to know what his message is to Ford about this unacceptable situation.

Gregg McClymont: My message would be the message that has come from across the House, including from the right hon. Gentleman, which is that we must engage seriously with the issue at hand and Ford must face up to its responsibilities in this matter. As has been said—again, by Members from across the House—Ford is a company with a strong imprint in the UK and has been here a long time. Unless the public are confident that Ford will play by the rules and treat people fairly, the potential damage to Ford’s brand is obvious. “Brand” can sound rather advertisement-like, but the position is very simple.

Nick de Bois: The hon. Gentleman talks about the brand and the customers, but it looks to me as if Ford has treated a supplier abominably. Perhaps there is a message that could go out to suppliers that is an unhealthy one.

Gregg McClymont: We have to be careful, given the ongoing legal case, but the comments from both sides of the House on these issues have resonated with everyone in the House today, including with those in the Public Gallery. Both sides of the House are clear that Ford must engage with its responsibilities. The wider issue is that if companies have a responsibility, beyond the bottom line, to their employees and the countries in which they operate, the direction of travel for Ford in this case must be clear.
	What more can the Government do to satisfy the demands of Ford Visteon pensioners? I would be delighted to hear the Minister outline what the changes to the PPF cap mean and talk about the wider issue of ensuring that such pension transfers do not end up being to the great detriment of employees.

James Duddridge: On what more the Government can do, in my speech I explained that—doing my bit in my small way—I would not be buying a Ford Capri Mk II. The Government have a bit more purchasing power than the Duddridge household. How does the hon. Gentleman feel about the Government reconsidering purchasing Ford vehicles until this matter is resolved?

Gregg McClymont: That is a question for the Minister, who is just about to respond to the debate.

Steve Webb: I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on his work as chair of the all-party group and his perseverance over a number years in raising this issue, along with the officers and members of the all-party group, which is well represented today. Such unanimity across the House, across political parties and across parts of the United Kingdom is rare and is all the more telling for that. The House has spoken today with a single voice. Those who follow our proceedings, both in person and by other means, will have heard clearly the single view of the House of Commons.
	As you will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, at the beginning of our proceedings your fellow Deputy Speaker relayed Mr Speaker’s guidance. We respect that guidance, of course. I am particularly conscious of the need to avoid saying anything that would in any way undermine or prejudice the case being brought by Unite the union
	and by individual former Visteon workers. We want to see justice done through due process. I hope the House will understand that my remarks are slightly more guarded for that reason.
	We discussed this matter almost exactly a year ago in a debate in Westminster Hall that raised many of the same issues. In the course of that debate, I said that I was particularly conscious of the Visteon workers ending up in the Pension Protection Fund and, as hon. Members have said, finding that the pension they receive is not much more than half the pension they were expecting. With my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock, I met members of the Visteon Pension Action Group in summer 2012, and it was their individual case studies that made me acutely aware of the impact of the PPF cap on their entitlements under the scheme. As I explained at the time, the thinking behind the cap was to ensure that what I loosely call the “fat cats” of the scheme, the people right at the top, could not manipulate matters and still receive a full pension. That was why the previous Government introduced the cap. It was my judgment at the time, and it remains so, that the cap was having an unfair and adverse impact on people who had relatively large pension entitlements not because they had earned phenomenal amounts of money, but because they had given very long service.
	During the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock referred to his constituent Mr Varney, who had about 38 years of combined service with Visteon and Ford, and my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) referred to his constituent Mr Sharpe, who had served for 27 years. These are the sorts of workers potentially caught by the cap, depending—obviously—on their wage. I said in last year’s debate that we were looking at whether we could do something about that, and I am pleased to confirm today that we have acted upon that promise. The Pensions Bill, which is now in another place, provides that for those who have been members of a scheme for more than 20 years, the cap should be increased by 3% for each additional year they are above the cap. Obviously I cannot comment on individual cases but, in principle, someone who has served for 38 years would have 18 lots of 3% so a cap 54% higher than the standard cap. If they were still capped at that point, as it were, their pension would be 54% higher than it is currently.
	Sadly, these things take time—the Bill has not passed the other place and when it has we will have to produce detailed secondary legislation—but I can assure the House that we intend these higher rates of payment to be in place in the lifetime of this Parliament and to apply from that date onwards. They will not be retrospectively applied, but they will apply to schemes already in the PPF, such as the Visteon scheme. I am aware that probably only 60 or 70 Visteon employees will be affected by this measure, but I hope that for them, who have suffered the biggest proportionate loss, this will be of some benefit.

James Duddridge: I fully support the payment protection being discussed, but if I follow the logic correctly, the Government are, in effect, paying for Ford’s failure to take moral responsibility. Will there come a point when the Government look to Ford to repay money they have paid out through the PPF?

Steve Webb: It is not the Government who pay for the PPF, but the rest of British industry. It is funded partly by the assets of the schemes in the fund and the investment returns on them and partly by a levy on schemes with defined benefit pension liabilities. I realise it does not change the issue my hon. Friend raises, but it is not the taxpayer who funds the PPF; it is other firms with ongoing defined benefit pension liabilities. The PPF does not form a judgment of the rights and wrongs of a firm’s conduct leading up to insolvency. That is a separate matter that might come up during the court proceedings.
	During the debate, we heard that Visteon was spun off from Ford in 2000, before the present architecture—the Pensions Regulator and the PPF—was in place. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) asked whether these sorts of things could happen again and whether a hypothetical future firm could structure its affairs with a view to minimising its pensions liabilities and passing them on to the PPF. I can reassure her that part of the remit of the Pensions Regulator is to protect the PPF and hence other levy payers. For example, firms considering a corporate restructuring that would have implications for the covenant of their pensions scheme can seek pre-clearance from the Pensions Regulator, and the latter has powers to act if a corporate transaction has been undertaken with specific intent to weaken pension protection. The situation, therefore, is considerably different from the one pertaining in 2000.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) described the workers who accepted the transfer from Ford to Visteon. The hon. Gentleman said they were not greedy or stupid, which of course they were not, and my hon. Friend said they were sensible and level-headed. It was the natural thing to do at the time: someone’s employment is transferred from one employer to another, they are given assurances about their pension and it is suggested they transfer it across. There are different accounts of exactly how the conversation went, but it was an entirely rational thing for people to do. There is no suggestion that people who made that decision acted inappropriately; they acted in good faith on the assurances given.

Stephen Metcalfe: One issue that arose about the point of transfer was that some were reaching the end of their careers within Ford but were still left obliged to transfer before—in one case, only three months before—they retired, only to find out later that they had been disadvantaged. Could the Government look at providing for those in the process of reaching retirement a buffer zone, whereby people do not have to transfer out of the fund into which they have put most of their earnings over their working lives?

Steve Webb: It is worth bearing in mind that, in all these cases, we are generally dealing with a trust—a pension fund set up as a trust has trustees—and with private companies, scheme rules and so forth. It is difficult to see how the Government could write a law that interacted with all those different aspects in a rational way. I take my hon. Friend’s point, as I, too, have heard about folk who worked only a few months for Visteon, yet transferred across their life’s pension rights with Ford—with very adverse consequences.
	I appreciate that that happened. It is quite clear that no blame or criticism could possibly attach to the workers whose pensions were transferred across; they are clearly the innocent parties in all this.
	Prior to this debate, I re-read the transcript of our debate of a year ago. I was struck by the tone, which was slightly different. I do not know whether this was co-ordinated because I was not involved in those conversations, but I was struck that a number of hon. Members said that they did not want to drag Ford down, as they recognised that Ford was a key employer for this country and that many people who worked for the company were proud to do. As I say, I was struck that hon. Members were not trying to denigrate Ford, but were concerned that, if the matter remained unresolved, Ford’s reputation would suffer. I think this striking tone will have been noticed.
	It was made clear during the course of the debate that although Visteon was spun off as a separate company, there were close links between Visteon and Ford. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) mentioned the nature of the relationship, drawing on his business expertise, while some hon. Members pointed out that new contracts were not signed. Reference was made to the fact that the long service award that Visteon workers received accumulated their Ford service, and there was Ford branding and all of that. Leaving aside the legalities, it is absolutely clear that the two companies were very closely interlinked; there can be no doubt about that.
	During our discussions, the potential for Select Committees to look into this issue was raised. What Select Committees choose to investigate is obviously not a matter for the Government, but I am happy to repeat the assurance I gave a year ago that if any Select Committee—perhaps the Culture, Media and Sport Committee could find an obscure angle to get going on this—decided to take up this issue, we would be happy to put at its disposal the expertise of the Pensions Regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and my own officials to advise or guide in any such investigation.
	The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) asked what the Government could do. At this point, I refer back to the motion, which “calls on the Government” to do what they can and use what influence they can to bring matters to a “resolution”. The court process is happening, so the legalities will be resolved one way or another through that.
	Prompted by today’s debate, I asked my officials to contact Ford UK, which they have done. We have agreed that I shall meet Ford UK early in the UK and I shall take up the concerns that have been voiced. Ford and I have agreed that the spirit of that meeting will be one of constructive dialogue. I thought the best way I could reflect the spirit of today’s debate and the many excellent speeches we have heard would be to relay in person to senior executives of Ford UK the tenor of our debate and the views of the House. Almost uniquely, we have spoken with one voice. I hope that that reassures hon. Members. In addition to what they have done by properly putting their concerns on the record again, I hope that, with our proceedings being heard beyond this House, further steps will be taken on behalf of these pensioners.

James Duddridge: I totally agree that constructive dialogue will provide the right way forward. It is what everyone has been trying to achieve ever since the first debate on the issue. If that constructive dialogue does not produce the results we hope for, will the Minister consider seeking a meeting with his opposite number in the United States to see whether any political options across the pond could be explored to encourage everyone to do the right thing?

Steve Webb: At the back of my mind is a feeling that I would not want to meet my hon. Friend in a dark alley at night. I am not sure why I have that feeling. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend put his point forcefully. Given that representatives of Ford have agreed to meet me in a spirit of constructive dialogue, I shall leave it at that for now, but we shall clearly have to reflect on what further actions could be taken.
	Finally, let me reassure members of the all-party parliamentary group that I shall be happy to report the outcome of my conversation with Ford UK to their office. Obviously I do not want to raise any false hopes—Ford’s position is well known, and I do not want to pretend that it has suddenly changed—but I am trying to engage constructively with the company, and I hope that the company will engage constructively with the House.

Stephen Metcalfe: Thank you for the opportunity to wrap up the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the relationship between Visteon and Ford has been very well explored, as has the reason for the belief of members of the all-party parliamentary group that Ford has a moral responsibility to make good the losses that have been suffered by our constituents.
	We have heard from a number of Members today. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) drew comparisons with the way in which other companies have dealt with this issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) described the differences between the ways in which business is conducted on the two sides of the Atlantic. We also heard from my hon. Friend—and I do call him a friend—the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who is the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, and whom I thank for his invaluable help. My hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) expressed the hope that the issue would not go to court, and that is probably the feeling of the whole House. I think that if the issue did go to court and Ford were victorious, it would be a hollow victory anyway, because the company would still not have met its moral obligations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) presented a strong argument about the links between Ford and Visteon and the continuity in the supply chain, and my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) referred to Project Kennedy, which was intended to ensure that the supply chain was continuous. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) described Ford as a four-letter word behaving in a four-letter way. I am grateful to all of them, I am grateful to the shadow Minister, and I am especially grateful to the Minister for
	the efforts that he has made over the last three years. I am particularly impressed to learn that he has been in contact with Ford UK, and that a meeting is planned. That is a positive step.
	The final message that I want to send to all who have listened to the debate, inside and outside the House, is that this fight will not go away. We see an injustice that has been done to our constituents, and we will carry on fighting until justice has been done.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House notes that, when Visteon UK Ltd was spun off from the Ford Motor Company, employees transferred from Ford’s pension scheme into the Visteon UK pension fund on the clear understanding that their pension rights would be unaffected; further notes that, when Visteon UK subsequently went into administration, now over four years ago, former Ford employees suffered a substantial reduction in their pension rights; regrets that the resolution of any court action is still some way off; believes that Ford should recognise a duty of care to its former employees and should make good the pension losses suffered by those worst affected without the need for legal action; and calls on the Government to use the power and influence at its disposal to help ensure that Ford recognises its obligations and accepts voluntarily its duty of care to former Visteon UK pensioners.

Petition
	 — 
	Future Governance in Kashmir

Fiona Mactaggart: I have in my hand a petition which has been signed by more than 2,000 of my constituents. It calls for a parliamentary debate to be held in the House of Commons on the situation in Kashmir. The people who organised the petition said:
	“We hope you are fully aware of the ling lingering Kashmir dispute which is a threat to regional and global peace and is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations. The dispute needs to be solved in accordance with the aspirations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir. The UK being a friend of both India and Pakistan could facilitate a negotiated settlement as per international commitments and United Nations resolutions.”
	My constituents firmly believe that were we to debate this issue in the House of Commons, we could deal with the human rights situation in Jammu and Kashmir, and, by doing so, progress the right of self-determination for Kashmiris and prevent daily human rights abuses. I hope that the House will accept the petition, in which the petitioners
	request that the House of Commons debate this matter on the floor of the House and further requests that the House urges the Government to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that the ongoing Kashmir dispute is a threat to regional and global peace; further that the dispute is causing insecurity, instability and human rights violations; and further that the State of Jammu and Kashmir should be given the right to self-determination.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons debate this matter on the floor of the House and further requests that the House urges the Government to facilitate a negotiated settlement.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.]
	[P001312]

CALDERDALE ROYAL HOSPITAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Amber Rudd.)

Linda Riordan: I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on such an important issue for my constituents and for the Halifax and Calderdale area. This goes to the very heart—the very essence—of what people should be able to expect from their national health service, what services they should get from their local hospital, and how they should have confidence that well-run, popular and accessible services like Calderdale Royal hospital accident and emergency department will not be cut back or closed. However, for some time now Calderdale Royal hospital’s accident and emergency department has been under threat. It is an issue that has been simmering away in my constituency and recently the rumours have turned to reality as the Government and local health bosses, much to the anger of local people, have refused to guarantee that Calderdale’s A and E department is safe.
	I shall briefly set out some of the background to this issue. In 2001 Halifax’s general and royal infirmaries merged with Northowram hospital to become Calderdale Royal. Over the last decade it has served the area extremely well. It has excellent, dedicated and well-qualified staff who provide a first-class health service to people across the district. It serves many diverse communities in Halifax and Calderdale, and its reach extends to the Lancashire border and to communities bordering Bradford. Therefore, a wide geographical area needs, and relies on, Calderdale Royal, and in particular its A and E department.
	In recent months, as speculation has risen that the axe could fall on the town’s A and E, so has the sense of public outrage that such a short-sighted, unnecessary and unwanted decision is even under consideration, let alone that there is the possibility of its being implemented. United against that are hospital users, health campaigners, trade unions and Calderdale council. I have yet to find anyone who would be in favour of such a decision.
	I know the Minister will say that nothing has yet been proposed, but nothing has been denied either. Indeed, I have asked in this House if Calderdale’s A and E is safe and no one has confirmed that it is.

Craig Whittaker: I dare say that the hon. Lady, coming from the Calderdale area, has, like myself, had briefings both from the chief executive officer of the NHS trust and the chairman of the Calderdale clinical commissioning group, and I must say that at no time have either of those two people mentioned to me that Calderdale Royal is under threat of closure. I just wonder whether she could elaborate on where this information has come from.

Linda Riordan: I have met the Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Trust CEO and doctors and other clinicians. They say—and they gave out a document for me to read—that changes are afoot. That is coming from inside the hospital and the council, and from the general public. So, again, I ask the Minister to rule out the possible closure or even any cuts.
	All I have been told is that a strategic document is available on the future of local services. Frankly, my constituents do not need to read jargon-filled paragraphs about clinical decisions. They know when something is right or wrong, and they know that what matters in Halifax is the continuation of our good local health service, with an accident and emergency department free at the point of need. They do not want that service to be in Huddersfield, Dewsbury or Bradford. They want it where it is, in Halifax, serving the communities that I represent and those of Calderdale.
	I have read and heard a lot in recent weeks about how A and E departments need reforming. I have heard that too many of the people using them could be seen elsewhere. I am afraid that that is a weak argument. The whole point of the service is to deal with accidents as well as emergencies. People cannot be told to use alternative services if their walk-in centres are closing, or if their doctor’s surgery has closed for the night or, when it is open, they cannot get an urgent appointment.

Craig Whittaker: The hon. Lady will know that we recently had a campaign to keep the walk-in centre in Todmorden open. The reality is, however, that the walk-in centres in Halifax and Todmorden are both under-utilised. Would it not be far better if those carrying out the review came up with a proposal for a low-level accident and emergency-type service in Halifax and in Todmorden? Surely that would be better than the current arrangements.

Linda Riordan: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the A and E should be closed down and replaced by a low-level service in Halifax and Calderdale—

Craig Whittaker: indicated dissent.

Linda Riordan: We need the full A and E. Walk-in centres were designed to take the pressure off A and E departments and if they are used correctly, in conjunction with educating people on how they should be used, that is exactly what they will do.
	My constituents certainly do not want to make a 25-minute journey across town to access health services that they rightly want to see in their own community. Let me be clear: the Government could and should have an important role to play in this decision. The buck should not be passed solely to local clinicians so that the Government can wash their hands of the matter. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) would make it clear that he intended to put pressure on his Government to protect local health services.

Craig Whittaker: I am in total agreement with the hon. Lady: I would not accept the closure of A and E at Calderdale Royal. I am very much hoping that, following the review that is due in January, we will see an enhanced service not only in Calder Valley but in Halifax and the whole of Calderdale. I am looking forward to seeing those proposals.

Linda Riordan: I am very much hoping that the Minister is going to tell us that Calderdale Royal hospital’s accident and emergency department is guaranteed to stay open.
	The Government set the policies, and they must also take responsibility for any decisions that will affect the A and E in Calderdale. Also, there should be no hiding behind a public consultation. The question is quite simple: do the Government support the retention of the accident and emergency department in Calderdale? If they do, there is no need for any consultation. If they do not, they should come clean and set out their position. This lack of clarity is causing a lot of worry, anguish and anger in my constituency and across Calderdale.
	Last week I organised a round-table meeting with interested parties at local level to discuss a way forward. The town is united in the need to ensure that Calderdale’s A and E stays put. Let us imagine what would happen if the department were cut back or closed. I presume that the services would transfer to Huddersfield. For many of my constituents that would mean at best a 20-minute journey, but probably journeys of 25, 30, 35 or even 40 minutes along busy roads, past a motorway interchange, and into Huddersfield. At the risk of using emotive language, such a move really could be a matter of life and death. Do health bosses think that people would stop using the other A and Es if they closed the one in Calderdale? I do not think they would. I also want to place on the record that this is not about Halifax versus Huddersfield; it is not about pitting one A and E against the other. This is about ensuring that people across west Yorkshire have access to good quality health care that is rooted in their local communities.
	Let us just examine for a moment why this position might have come about. Since 2010, the Government have been systematically dismantling alternatives to A and E: a quarter of walk-in centres have been closed since the election; NHS Direct has been scrapped; the guarantee of a GP appointment within 48 hours has been scrapped; and fewer and fewer GP practices are open at evenings and weekends. People in Halifax and Calderdale will have fewer alternatives, not more, if the A and E closes. If patients are waiting more than four hours for treatment, is the answer to close A and Es? I do not think it is. This crisis is not due to a lack of education or people going to A and E with minor problems; it is more to do with cuts to social care budgets, meaning that more older people are ending up in hospital because there is no one else to take care of them.
	If the Government’s answer to an A and E crisis is to close A and E departments, we really are in trouble in Halifax. Cutting back on services does not solve the problem; it just transfers it elsewhere. I am determined to fight for better services at Calderdale Royal, not to see them cut. I want to see our A and E department saved, not sacrificed. I want to see the excellent staff supported, not under-resourced, and to ensure we have the best possible NHS serving Halifax and its wider communities.
	The reaction of the public in my constituency has been an overwhelming “Hands off our A and E department.” We need it to stay open, to continue the excellent service it provides and to ensure it serves the people of Halifax today and for years to come. Anything else would be a tragic mistake of short-term thinking, and a failure to provide my constituents with a local hospital and a national health service fit for the 21st century.

Jane Ellison: I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Mrs Riordan) on securing this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) on staying on to attend and intervening in the telling way he did. There is obviously a keen interest in all these local health matters among Members on both sides of the House. I am aware that all parties are interested in these matters; I have received representations from other Members, and not just the hon. Lady who has raised this matter in the House previously during Health questions.
	The reconfiguration of health services is an important issue for all of us and our constituents, and the future of A and E departments is particularly topical at present. I understand that people have anxieties about change and, in particular, about change in the NHS, because it is such a greatly loved and respected institution, but I hope I am in keeping with the spirit of this debate when I say that it is vital that we do not play on those anxieties, especially for purely political purposes. It is important that these difficult but necessary debates take place in an atmosphere of calm consideration.

Linda Riordan: Will the Minister give way?

Jane Ellison: I ask the hon. Lady to let me develop my points, because I have not even begun to respond to her speech. I shall give way, if time allows, a little later.
	Before I address the particulars of this debate, may I touch on the Government’s policy on changes to services in general? I realise that the hon. Lady may say that this is what I was going to say, but it is important to understand the principles behind reconfiguration policy. This Government are clear that the design of front-line health services, including A and E, is a matter for the local NHS. That is for good reason, because those local leaders, working closely with local democratic representatives, local government and the public they serve, can come to better conclusions about the services for their area than a Minister sitting in Whitehall trying to decide policy for the whole country, which is a very old-fashioned model of how to do these things.
	The NHS has a responsibility to ensure that people have access to the best and safest health care possible. That means planning ahead and looking at sustainability as well as safety in NHS health care provision. No party can escape the challenge of providing sustainable services, and I do not think that challenge is any different for the Labour Front-Bench team from how it is for the Government. The Labour party made these points often when it was in government.
	Reconfiguration is about modernising delivery of care and ensuring that we have the facilities to improve patient outcomes, develop services closer to home and, most importantly, save lives. I listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s arguments about her own local area, but if we look at an area in London, as I represent a London seat, we will see that exactly the same arguments were made against centralising stroke care, which was centralised in eight hyper-acute stroke units. They are now providing 24/7 acute stroke care. Stroke mortality is now 20% lower in London than the rest of UK, and survivors are experiencing a better quality of life.
	I gave that example to illustrate the fact that we must be wary of some of the arguments against reconfiguration. I am quite clear that in London something that was opposed for some of the reasons the hon. Lady has touched on in her speech is now saving lives for my constituents and others. I want to ensure that that point is at least underlined.
	We must allow the local NHS continually to challenge the status quo. I do not accept the hon. Lady’s argument, which, as I understand it, is that nothing should ever change. How, in a modern and ever-changing world, can she advance the argument that nothing should ever change and that it would be wrong of her clinicians even to look at the case for change?

Linda Riordan: I am sure that the Minister listened to my speech. I did say at the beginning, just to give her some brief history, that in 2001, under a Labour Government, we finally got that brand new hospital for which we had waited nearly 20 years. It had been promised by a Tory Government. We went from three hospitals to one. She is quite right: things do change, and I was part of that change in 2001.

Jane Ellison: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I am glad that we have established some consensus on that point She is probably aware that I know her area quite well, having lived there for quite a few years before I moved to London.
	All service changes should be led by clinicians, and be based on a clear, robust clinical case for change that delivers better outcomes for all our constituents. We have put patients, carers and local communities at the heart of the NHS, by shifting decision making as close as possible to individual patients, devolving power to professionals and providers, who also have patient care, safety and sustainable service at the core of their public service commitment, and liberating them from top-down control.
	The principles are enshrined in the four reconfiguration tests. I am sure the hon. Lady knows them well, but for the record they are support from GP commissioners; strengthened public and patient engagements; clarity on the clinical evidence base; and support for patient choice. Those are the tests against which any reconfiguration needs to be judged.
	A and E is obviously very topical at the moment. The NHS is seeing increasing pressure on A and E services, but is generally coping well. I am sure that that is the case with the hon. Lady’s local hospital as well. We are meeting our four-hour A and E standard at the moment. It is the 32nd consecutive week the standard has been met. We are determined to do everything we can for the NHS to continue providing high-quality care. She will know of some of the extra moneys that we have allocated—I think it is £2.3 million for Calderdale and Huddersfield—for winter pressures. That does not allow us to escape the fact that there are longer-term challenges, and these have been acknowledged across the House. One million more patients have gone to A and E in the past three years, and there are the pressures of an ageing population. We, across the House, have to address those long-term challenges, and the Government are trying to focus on some of the underlying causes, whether by having named GPs for the over-75s or changes to GP contracts; or, in public health, helping people to manage long-term
	conditions and to live well for longer; or the £3.8 billion allocated to help to integrate health and social care, because we recognise how vital that process is. All those measures are about addressing the underlying drivers of pressure on A and E and pressure on our health service and looking at how we can make it sustainable in the longer term.
	We have recently had an excellent review from Sir Bruce Keogh that looked at urgent and emergency care. It also looked at demands on services and how the NHS should respond. We asked for that review because of the determination not to sidestep the problem of growing pressure on A and E but to deal long term with a problem that has been building for decades. Too many sticking plasters have been applied in the past to get through a year or two. That is why we need to clarify to the public how we are planning to shape those services for the longer term and where they will be delivered.
	Most of the current reconfiguration projects are in line with the Keogh report’s principles as an overall direction of travel. We have been clear about that for some time. All local health economies that are undergoing reconfiguration have to pay close heed to the direction of travel set out in the Keogh report, the essence of which was that this is about services, people and co-ordination. It is not just about the bricks and mortar; it is about getting the right care to people at the right time, and flexibility and the co-ordination of services are just as important as how they are geographically configured, and that was the message from the Keogh review.
	Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s local area. She said that people want good quality health care rooted in the local area. That is exactly what is at the heart of the review that is being undertaken. As I have outlined, the configuration of local health services is a matter for the local NHS, for the very good reasons I have given. It cannot be dictated from Whitehall. Locally, I understand that the review is considering health and social care services with the point about ensuring that patients continue to receive high-quality and sustainable services at its heart. The work includes considering how best emergency care services and other acute services can be delivered, and in an intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley touched on some of the ways that can be done differently and in a more imaginative and responsive way.
	No decisions have been made at the moment, and of course any plans for major service change that emerge from the review would be subject to formal public consultation. Public consultation have to be real and robust. Commissioners know that, and at all stages of the process I would expect Members to be involved, as well as local government. At this stage, the commissioners have not brought forward plans for consultation, but they will need to be assured that any proposals they make for reconfiguration and change will meet the strengthened tests I mentioned earlier.
	At the heart of all this is the need to serve local people better. I understand from some of the early engagement work, in which thousands of local people were involved, that the message was that people want quality and access. Those are the two key messages that came through and that are the forefront of people’s minds. They want quality services and they want access to them at the right time. The trust has, I believe, identified a need to co-locate acute services to maximise
	the potential of its work force, to ensure that services are safe and to deliver the best outcomes for patients for a long time.
	The trust is taking on board a range of views as part of the review. I know that the hon. Lady has met local NHS leaders, as have my hon. Friend and other interested local parties. That will include external independent clinical opinion on how best to deliver emergency care, such as that given by the Keogh review. I stress again that the process is locally driven, and I encourage interested hon. Members to continue to engage with the process and to work with the local NHS as it develops those plans. The NHS is one of the world’s greatest institutions, so ensuring that it is sustainable and serves the best interests of patients sometimes means taking tough decisions, including on the provision of urgent and emergency care. Those decisions are taken for a reason: good-quality care and access to it are at the heart of this.
	As the hon. Lady has acknowledged, sometimes things change over time. The pressures change, as do the way we respond to them and what we know about how we
	respond to them. For example, we know that more than 30% of people who go to A and E—in some places, it is more in the order of 50%—do not even need to be there. That is not sustainable in the long term and we need to address it, but those decisions are best made when the NHS is working in collaboration with local people, with local democratic representatives and with local authorities and considering what is best for the people of their area.
	May I take this opportunity before I close to place on record my thanks to the hard-working NHS staff of Calderdale for the service they give to the people of that area and to the hon. Lady’s constituents? I hope very much that they have a good Christmas in the sense that they have as few people as possible in A and E who do not need to be in A and E over Christmas, because I know it is a difficult and challenging time for NHS staff, but we are all grateful for what they do for all of us.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.